Surely if the government lose it will turn out that there never were any Brexit Subcommittee papers, indeed perhaps there never was a Brexit subcommittee?
The government played an (almost) blinder on the Brexit analysis papers. First by vaguely referring to thorough analysis and then trying to prevent publication, encouraging cynical people - my.raised hand - to believe they didn't have any analysis and so they cobbled together some stuff using Wikipedia.
And then it turned out they secretly DID HAVE ANALYSIS, which explained Brexit was all a big mistake, which anyone sensible knows already. But they put numbers on it. I admit I was fooled. I really thought they were pretending to have analysis but didn't really.
Brexit is only a 'mistake' to those for whom economics is all and sovereignty and insufficient immigration control is irrelevant
We could very probably achieve greater economic growth by having a single global government, single global currency and global free movement.
That doesn’t make it a good idea.
That is the ultimate aim of the globalists though I guess?
Is the world/aim of Star Trek.
For the Borg, sure.
For the Federation and Earth too.
As Garak observed, the Federation is insidious. The difference between the two isn't as much as people like to make out.
I definitely prefer the Klingons and Cardassians to the Federation. Though DS9 Federation is much more interesting than TNG or VOY.
As Commander Eddington observed that the Federation is just like the Borg except the Federation assimilate people without telling them.
Surely if the government lose it will turn out that there never were any Brexit Subcommittee papers, indeed perhaps there never was a Brexit subcommittee?
The government played an (almost) blinder on the Brexit analysis papers. First by vaguely referring to thorough analysis and then trying to prevent publication, encouraging cynical people - my.raised hand - to believe they didn't have any analysis and so they cobbled together some stuff using Wikipedia.
And then it turned out they secretly DID HAVE ANALYSIS, which explained Brexit was all a big mistake, which anyone sensible knows already. But they put numbers on it. I admit I was fooled. I really thought they were pretending to have analysis but didn't really.
Brexit is only a 'mistake' to those for whom economics is all and sovereignty and insufficient immigration control is irrelevant
We could very probably achieve greater economic growth by having a single global government, single global currency and global free movement.
That doesn’t make it a good idea.
That is the ultimate aim of the globalists though I guess?
Is the world/aim of Star Trek.
For the Borg, sure.
For the Federation and Earth too.
As Garak observed, the Federation is insidious. The difference between the two isn't as much as people like to make out.
I definitely prefer the Klingons and Cardassians to the Federation. Though DS9 Federation is much more interesting than TNG or VOY.
I like an optimistic, near utopian vision of the future, it makes a change from so many dystopic stories, but the TNG lot were so smug about it, so the slightly tarnished lot from DS9 more interesting.
That said, Discovery's Federation, where apparently court martial's are conducted by a panel of admirals with faces covered in shadow in a room that is near pitch black but for a spotlight on the accused like some kind of anonymous show trial for some reason, may be taking it too far!
BBC leading with wedding shenanigans rather than the decent economic figures.
Really quite astonishing figures. Another 197k people in work over the last 3 months when, according to the ONS, there was no growth to talk of. I mean, huh? What on earth is going on? 0.1% growth in the quarter really should have been accompanied by falling employment and an increase in unemployment. We have a 0.6% increase in employment and the only way that can be reconciled with the growth figure is to assess productivity at -0.5%. Does anyone seriously believe this?
We now have the highest percentage of those between 16 and 64 in work ever recorded. And that is despite the fact that in the 1970's or 80's many of the 16 year old's would have been in work and they are now all presumably in compulsory education.
Oh and wages are now growing again in real terms.
You can see the effect of a later start to working in that male employment percentage in the 16-64 age group is still lower than it was for every month of the 1970s and much of the 1980s:
I would have expected there to be some feed through by now of redundancies in the retail and restaurant sectors.
The redundancy figures are also not consistent with a pronounced "soft patch" although I accept that they might well be a lagging indicator. I honestly don't know what to think but our employment miracle is truly remarkable. Every time you think it has run out of steam there is another spurt. I just can't see why anyone is employing these additional hundreds of thousands of people to produce less.
Surely if the government lose it will turn out that there never were any Brexit Subcommittee papers, indeed perhaps there never was a Brexit subcommittee?
The government played an (almost) blinder on the Brexit analysis papers. First by vaguely referring to thorough analysis and then trying to prevent publication, encouraging cynical people - my.raised hand - to believe they didn't have any analysis and so they cobbled together some stuff using Wikipedia.
And then it turned out they secretly DID HAVE ANALYSIS, which explained Brexit was all a big mistake, which anyone sensible knows already. But they put numbers on it. I admit I was fooled. I really thought they were pretending to have analysis but didn't really.
Brexit is only a 'mistake' to those for whom economics is all and sovereignty and insufficient immigration control is irrelevant
We could very probably achieve greater economic growth by having a single global government, single global currency and global free movement.
That doesn’t make it a good idea.
That is the ultimate aim of the globalists though I guess?
Is the world/aim of Star Trek.
For the Borg, sure.
For the Federation and Earth too.
As Garak observed, the Federation is insidious. The difference between the two isn't as much as people like to make out.
I definitely prefer the Klingons and Cardassians to the Federation. Though DS9 Federation is much more interesting than TNG or VOY.
If we ever advanced that far, and needed interplanetary relations, then something like an Earth federation would be perfectly feasible, even likely.
However, I’d expect it to deal with things like agreeing rules for interplanetary trade with other planets, global space defence, and interspecies relations and I’d expect it to do it though nation states on earth.
I wouldn’t expect it to fully replace domestic governments, or normal foreign policy relations between nation states on earth, still less globalise tax, health, education and social policy as Star Trek implies.
Surely if the government lose it will turn out that there never were any Brexit Subcommittee papers, indeed perhaps there never was a Brexit subcommittee?
The government played an (almost) blinder on the Brexit analysis papers. First by vaguely referring to thorough analysis and then trying to prevent publication, encouraging cynical people - my.raised hand - to believe they didn't have any analysis and so they cobbled together some stuff using Wikipedia.
And then it turned out they secretly DID HAVE ANALYSIS, which explained Brexit was all a big mistake, which anyone sensible knows already. But they put numbers on it. I admit I was fooled. I really thought they were pretending to have analysis but didn't really.
Brexit is only a 'mistake' to those for whom economics is all and sovereignty and insufficient immigration control is irrelevant
We could very probably achieve greater economic growth by having a single global government, single global currency and global free movement.
That doesn’t make it a good idea.
That is the ultimate aim of the globalists though I guess?
Is the world/aim of Star Trek.
For the Borg, sure.
For the Federation and Earth too.
As Garak observed, the Federation is insidious. The difference between the two isn't as much as people like to make out.
I definitely prefer the Klingons and Cardassians to the Federation. Though DS9 Federation is much more interesting than TNG or VOY.
If we ever advanced that far, and needed interplanetary relations, then something like an Earth federation would be perfectly feasible, even likely.
However, I’d expect it to deal with things like agreeing rules for interplanetary trade with other planets, global space defence, and interspecies relations and I’d expect it to do it though nation states on earth.
I wouldn’t expect it to fully replace domestic governments, or normal foreign policy relations between nation states on earth, still less globalise tax, health, education and social policy as Star Trek implies.
Surely if the government lose it will turn out that there never were any Brexit Subcommittee papers, indeed perhaps there never was a Brexit subcommittee?
The government played an (almost) blinder on the Brexit analysis papers. First by vaguely referring to thorough analysis and then trying to prevent publication, encouraging cynical people - my.raised hand - to believe they didn't have any analysis and so they cobbled together some stuff using Wikipedia.
And then it turned out they secretly DID HAVE ANALYSIS, which explained Brexit was all a big mistake, which anyone sensible knows already. But they put numbers on it. I admit I was fooled. I really thought they were pretending to have analysis but didn't really.
Brexit is only a 'mistake' to those for whom economics is all and sovereignty and insufficient immigration control is irrelevant
We could very probably achieve greater economic growth by having a single global government, single global currency and global free movement.
That doesn’t make it a good idea.
That is the ultimate aim of the globalists though I guess?
Is the world/aim of Star Trek.
For the Borg, sure.
For the Federation and Earth too.
As Garak observed, the Federation is insidious. The difference between the two isn't as much as people like to make out.
I definitely prefer the Klingons and Cardassians to the Federation. Though DS9 Federation is much more interesting than TNG or VOY.
As Commander Eddington observed that the Federation is just like the Borg except the Federation assimilate people without telling them.
Indeed. I'd suggest the EU definitely falls on the Borg side of the line, though the difference is relatively small.
Surely if the government lose it will turn out that there never were any Brexit Subcommittee papers, indeed perhaps there never was a Brexit subcommittee?
The government played an (almost) blinder on the Brexit analysis papers. First by vaguely referring to thorough analysis and then trying to prevent publication, encouraging cynical people - my.raised hand - to believe they didn't have any analysis and so they cobbled together some stuff using Wikipedia.
And then it turned out they secretly DID HAVE ANALYSIS, which explained Brexit was all a big mistake, which anyone sensible knows already. But they put numbers on it. I admit I was fooled. I really thought they were pretending to have analysis but didn't really.
Brexit is only a 'mistake' to those for whom economics is all and sovereignty and insufficient immigration control is irrelevant
We could very probably achieve greater economic growth by having a single global government, single global currency and global free movement.
That doesn’t make it a good idea.
That is the ultimate aim of the globalists though I guess?
Is the world/aim of Star Trek.
For the Borg, sure.
For the Federation and Earth too.
As Garak observed, the Federation is insidious. The difference between the two isn't as much as people like to make out.
I definitely prefer the Klingons and Cardassians to the Federation. Though DS9 Federation is much more interesting than TNG or VOY.
If we ever advanced that far, and needed interplanetary relations, then something like an Earth federation would be perfectly feasible, even likely.
However, I’d expect it to deal with things like agreeing rules for interplanetary trade with other planets, global space defence, and interspecies relations and I’d expect it to do it though nation states on earth.
I wouldn’t expect it to fully replace domestic governments, or normal foreign policy relations between nation states on earth, still less globalise tax, health, education and social policy as Star Trek implies.
I think if we ever had a unified world government it would look a lot more like a Middle Eastern dictatorship than anything like a western democracy. Simply, there are a lot more of them than there are us.
Hm, I wonder if they used AV to elect the Federation President?
You jest, but I would be interested to know - there could be a good episode in some newly joined members of the federation causing a stink as the 'wrong' person becomes president, or arguing over the process (biased toward the core worlds!). Are we to believe it made no difference who filled the position?
Hm, I wonder if they used AV to elect the Federation President?
Electoral college similar to the American President in one of the official novels.
Hmph, I bet once Earth and Vulcan vote there's virtually no point in anyone else voting as Earth has the huge population and Vulcan probably has a lot of colony worlds.
Hm, I wonder if they used AV to elect the Federation President?
Electoral college similar to the American President in one of the official novels.
In DS9 it sounded more like an appointed position like Junker.
The backstory for Jaresh Inyo in DS9 was that he was a reluctant President, an administrator that became President when the incumbent died and he was next in line.
Hm, I wonder if they used AV to elect the Federation President?
Electoral college similar to the American President in one of the official novels.
Hmph, I bet once Earth and Vulcan vote there's virtually no point in anyone else voting as Earth has the huge population and Vulcan probably has a lot of colony worlds.
BBC leading with wedding shenanigans rather than the decent economic figures.
Really quite astonishing figures. Another 197k people in work over the last 3 months when, according to the ONS, there was no growth to talk of. I mean, huh? What on earth is going on? 0.1% growth in the quarter really should have been accompanied by falling employment and an increase in unemployment. We have a 0.6% increase in employment and the only way that can be reconciled with the growth figure is to assess productivity at -0.5%. Does anyone seriously believe this?
We now have the highest percentage of those between 16 and 64 in work ever recorded. And that is despite the fact that in the 1970's or 80's many of the 16 year old's would have been in work and they are now all presumably in compulsory education.
Oh and wages are now growing again in real terms.
You can see the effect of a later start to working in that male employment percentage in the 16-64 age group is still lower than it was for every month of the 1970s and much of the 1980s:
I would have expected there to be some feed through by now of redundancies in the retail and restaurant sectors.
The redundancy figures are also not consistent with a pronounced "soft patch" although I accept that they might well be a lagging indicator. I honestly don't know what to think but our employment miracle is truly remarkable. Every time you think it has run out of steam there is another spurt. I just can't see why anyone is employing these additional hundreds of thousands of people to produce less.
Surely if the government lose it will turn out that there never were any Brexit Subcommittee papers, indeed perhaps there never was a Brexit subcommittee?
The government played an (almost) blinder on the Brexit analysis papers. First by vaguely referring to thorough analysis and then trying to prevent publication, encouraging cynical people - my.raised hand - to believe they didn't have any analysis and so they cobbled together some stuff using Wikipedia.
And then it turned out they secretly DID HAVE ANALYSIS, which explained Brexit was all a big mistake, which anyone sensible knows already. But they put numbers on it. I admit I was fooled. I really thought they were pretending to have analysis but didn't really.
Brexit is only a 'mistake' to those for whom economics is all and sovereignty and insufficient immigration control is irrelevant
We could very probably achieve greater economic growth by having a single global government, single global currency and global free movement.
That doesn’t make it a good idea.
That is the ultimate aim of the globalists though I guess?
Is the world/aim of Star Trek.
For the Borg, sure.
For the Federation and Earth too.
As Garak observed, the Federation is insidious. The difference between the two isn't as much as people like to make out.
I definitely prefer the Klingons and Cardassians to the Federation. Though DS9 Federation is much more interesting than TNG or VOY.
If we ever advanced that far, and needed interplanetary e tax, health, education and social policy as Star Trek implies.
I think if we ever had a unified world government it would look a lot more like a Middle Eastern dictatorship than anything like a western democracy. Simply, there are a lot more of them than there are us.
Even by 2050 Muslims are only projected to be 29.7% of the global population, so still a long way from 51%
BBC leading with wedding shenanigans rather than the decent economic figures.
Really quite astonishing figures. Another 197k people in work over the last 3 months when, according to the ONS, there was no growth to talk of. I mean, huh? What on earth is going on? 0.1% growth in the quarter really should have been accompanied by falling employment and an increase in unemployment. We have a 0.6% increase in employment and the only way that can be reconciled with the growth figure is to assess productivity at -0.5%. Does anyone seriously believe this?
We now have the highest percentage of those between 16 and 64 in work ever recorded. And that is despite the fact that in the 1970's or 80's many of the 16 year old's would have been in work and they are now all presumably in compulsory education.
Oh and wages are now growing again in real terms.
You can see the effect of a later start to working in that male employment percentage in the 16-64 age group is still lower than it was for every month of the 1970s and much of the 1980s:
I would have expected there to be some feed through by now of redundancies in the retail and restaurant sectors.
The redundancy figures are also not consistent with a pronounced "soft patch" although I accept that they might well be a lagging indicator. I honestly don't know what to think but our employment miracle is truly remarkable. Every time you think it has run out of steam there is another spurt. I just can't see why anyone is employing these additional hundreds of thousands of people to produce less.
Tax credits.
Nope. Tax credits may be why people are choosing to work. It is not why businesses are choosing to employ them.
Hm, I wonder if they used AV to elect the Federation President?
Electoral college similar to the American President in one of the official novels.
Hmph, I bet once Earth and Vulcan vote there's virtually no point in anyone else voting as Earth has the huge population and Vulcan probably has a lot of colony worlds.
I think Earth has the most colony world's, though Federation colonies are officially just "federation" world's rather than Human, Vulcan or Andorian etc...
Last American to be involved with the Royal's was Wallis... And we all know how that turned out.
There was Koo Stark too. Still on good terms with Andrew, I believe.
How good?
Andrew is Godfather to her daughter, and she was character witness for him in the Epstein allegations apparently.
Indeed among Royal ex's she has been unusually dignified and unobtrusive. Perhaps an opportunity was missed for an eighties Meghan. The Royal Family has learned to be a bit less domineering over the years, and a bit more tolerant. Like the rest of society really.
BBC leading with wedding shenanigans rather than the decent economic figures.
Really quite astonishing figures. Another 197k people in work over the last 3 months when, according to the ONS, there was no growth to talk of. I mean, huh? What on earth is going on? 0.1% growth in the quarter really should have been accompanied by falling employment and an increase in unemployment. We have a 0.6% increase in employment and the only way that can be reconciled with the growth figure is to assess productivity at -0.5%. Does anyone seriously believe this?
We now have the highest percentage of those between 16 and 64 in work ever recorded. And that is despite the fact that in the 1970's or 80's many of the 16 year old's would have been in work and they are now all presumably in compulsory education.
Oh and wages are now growing again in real terms.
You can see the effect of a later start to working in that male employment percentage in the 16-64 age group is still lower than it was for every month of the 1970s and much of the 1980s:
I would have expected there to be some feed through by now of redundancies in the retail and restaurant sectors.
The redundancy figures are also not consistent with a pronounced "soft patch" although I accept that they might well be a lagging indicator. I honestly don't know what to think but our employment miracle is truly remarkable. Every time you think it has run out of steam there is another spurt. I just can't see why anyone is employing these additional hundreds of thousands of people to produce less.
Tax credits.
Nope. Tax credits may be why people are choosing to work. It is not why businesses are choosing to employ them.
Two sides of the same coin. The existence of tax credits means that employers don't have to pay so much to employ people, thus making it worth employing them for tasks that would otherwise not be done or be done by robots. They also make the difference between viability and non-viability for some self-employment. Hence low unemployment and low productivity.
BBC leading with wedding shenanigans rather than the decent economic figures.
Really quite astonishing figures. Another 197k people in work over the last 3 months when, according to the ONS, there was no growth to talk of. I mean, huh? What on earth is going on? 0.1% growth in the quarter really should have been accompanied by falling employment and an increase in unemployment. We have a 0.6% increase in employment and the only way that can be reconciled with the growth figure is to assess productivity at -0.5%. Does anyone seriously believe this?
We now have the highest percentage of those between 16 and 64 in work ever recorded. And that is despite the fact that in the 1970's or 80's many of the 16 year old's would have been in work and they are now all presumably in compulsory education.
Oh and wages are now growing again in real terms.
You can see the effect of a later start to working in that male employment percentage in the 16-64 age group is still lower than it was for every month of the 1970s and much of the 1980s:
I would have expected there to be some feed through by now of redundancies in the retail and restaurant sectors.
The redundancy figures are also not consistent with a pronounced "soft patch" although I accept that they might well be a lagging indicator. I honestly don't know what to think but our employment miracle is truly remarkable. Every time you think it has run out of steam there is another spurt. I just can't see why anyone is employing these additional hundreds of thousands of people to produce less.
Tax credits.
Nope. Tax credits may be why people are choosing to work. It is not why businesses are choosing to employ them.
I don't think that's right. It's cheaper to hire minimum wage workers than to invest in capital goods. Tax credits are economically extremely damaging but no government has the balls to do away with them.
Last American to be involved with the Royal's was Wallis... And we all know how that turned out.
There was Koo Stark too. Still on good terms with Andrew, I believe.
How good?
Andrew is Godfather to her daughter, and she was character witness for him in the Epstein allegations apparently.
Indeed among Royal ex's she has been unusually dignified and unobtrusive. Perhaps an opportunity was missed for an eighties Meghan. The Royal Family has learned to be a bit less domineering over the years, and a bit more tolerant. Like the rest of society really.
Surely if the government lose it will turn out that there never were any Brexit Subcommittee papers, indeed perhaps there never was a Brexit subcommittee?
The government played an (almost) blinder on the Brexit analysis papers. First by vaguely referring to thorough analysis and then trying to prevent publication, encouraging cynical people - my.raised hand - to believe they didn't have any analysis and so they cobbled together some stuff using Wikipedia.
And then it turned out they secretly DID HAVE ANALYSIS, which explained Brexit was all a big mistake, which anyone sensible knows already. But they put numbers on it. I admit I was fooled. I really thought they were pretending to have analysis but didn't really.
Brexit is only a 'mistake' to those for whom economics is all and sovereignty and insufficient immigration control is irrelevant
We could very probably achieve greater economic growth by having a single global government, single global currency and global free movement.
That doesn’t make it a good idea.
That is the ultimate aim of the globalists though I guess?
Is the world/aim of Star Trek.
For the Borg, sure.
For the Federation and Earth too.
As Garak observed, the Federation is insidious. The difference between the two isn't as much as people like to make out.
I definitely prefer the Klingons and Cardassians to the Federation. Though DS9 Federation is much more interesting than TNG or VOY.
If we ever advanced that far, and needed interplanetary relations, then something like an Earth federation would be perfectly feasible, even likely.
However, I’d expect it to deal with things like agreeing rules for interplanetary trade with other planets, global space defence, and interspecies relations and I’d expect it to do it though nation states on earth.
I wouldn’t expect it to fully replace domestic governments, or normal foreign policy relations between nation states on earth, still less globalise tax, health, education and social policy as Star Trek implies.
I think if we ever had a unified world government it would look a lot more like a Middle Eastern dictatorship than anything like a western democracy. Simply, there are a lot more of them than there are us.
The British Empire didn’t do a good enough job.
Should have colonised far more countries for longer.
Hm, I wonder if they used AV to elect the Federation President?
Electoral college similar to the American President in one of the official novels.
Hmph, I bet once Earth and Vulcan vote there's virtually no point in anyone else voting as Earth has the huge population and Vulcan probably has a lot of colony worlds.
You can see the effect of a later start to working in that male employment percentage in the 16-64 age group is still lower than it was for every month of the 1970s and much of the 1980s:
I would have expected there to be some feed through by now of redundancies in the retail and restaurant sectors.
The redundancy figures are also not consistent with a pronounced "soft patch" although I accept that they might well be a lagging indicator. I honestly don't know what to think but our employment miracle is truly remarkable. Every time you think it has run out of steam there is another spurt. I just can't see why anyone is employing these additional hundreds of thousands of people to produce less.
Tax credits.
Nope. Tax credits may be why people are choosing to work. It is not why businesses are choosing to employ them.
I don't think that's right. It's cheaper to hire minimum wage workers than to invest in capital goods. Tax credits are economically extremely damaging but no government has the balls to do away with them.
I accept that there is a link between tax credits and low productivity. But I don't accept that is more of a problem than it was, say, 5 years ago. So the extra millions of workers over that time should be producing significantly more than we were 5 years ago even if the increase in employment is largely amongst the least productive. And we're not. Either we are measuring output wrongly or we are measuring employment wrongly. They can't both be right.
Hm, I wonder if they used AV to elect the Federation President?
Electoral college similar to the American President in one of the official novels.
Hmph, I bet once Earth and Vulcan vote there's virtually no point in anyone else voting as Earth has the huge population and Vulcan probably has a lot of colony worlds.
There were 150 odd planets in the Federation.
Sure, but depending on population (if the college works that way), 100 of those might only add up to the votes of Earth! It's not like Wyoming counts the same as California.
You can see the effect of a later start to working in that male employment percentage in the 16-64 age group is still lower than it was for every month of the 1970s and much of the 1980s:
I would have expected there to be some feed through by now of redundancies in the retail and restaurant sectors.
The redundancy figures are also not consistent with a pronounced "soft patch" although I accept that they might well be a lagging indicator. I honestly don't know what to think but our employment miracle is truly remarkable. Every time you think it has run out of steam there is another spurt. I just can't see why anyone is employing these additional hundreds of thousands of people to produce less.
Tax credits.
Nope. Tax credits may be why people are choosing to work. It is not why businesses are choosing to employ them.
I don't think that's right. It's cheaper to hire minimum wage workers than to invest in capital goods. Tax credits are economically extremely damaging but no government has the balls to do away with them.
I accept that there is a link between tax credits and low productivity. But I don't accept that is more of a problem than it was, say, 5 years ago. So the extra millions of workers over that time should be producing significantly more than we were 5 years ago even if the increase in employment is largely amongst the least productive. And we're not. Either we are measuring output wrongly or we are measuring employment wrongly. They can't both be right.
I don't know how you can accept the link between tax credits and low productivity without also accepting their link with low unemployment. They are two aspects of the same effect. That's not to say there aren't other factors that also affect productivity and unemployment, but it seems obvious to me that the UK's tax credit regime is a major contributing factor. Surely it is basic economics that if you artificially lower the cost of labour, then there will be more demand for labour?
The redundancy figures are also not consistent with a pronounced "soft patch" although I accept that they might well be a lagging indicator. I honestly don't know what to think but our employment miracle is truly remarkable. Every time you think it has run out of steam there is another spurt. I just can't see why anyone is employing these additional hundreds of thousands of people to produce less.
Tax credits.
Nope. Tax credits may be why people are choosing to work. It is not why businesses are choosing to employ them.
I don't think that's right. It's cheaper to hire minimum wage workers than to invest in capital goods. Tax credits are economically extremely damaging but no government has the balls to do away with them.
I accept that there is a link between tax credits and low productivity. But I don't accept that is more of a problem than it was, say, 5 years ago. So the extra millions of workers over that time should be producing significantly more than we were 5 years ago even if the increase in employment is largely amongst the least productive. And we're not. Either we are measuring output wrongly or we are measuring employment wrongly. They can't both be right.
I don't know how you can accept the link between tax credits and low productivity without also accepting their link with low unemployment. They are two aspects of the same effect. That's not to say there aren't other factors that also affect productivity and unemployment, but it seems obvious to me that the UK's tax credit regime is a major contributing factor. Surely it is basic economics that if you artificially lower the cost of labour, then there will be more demand for labour?
Indeed, and if you artificially increase the supply of labour willing to work for (an artificially high tax credit supported) minimum wage to an almost unlimited level thanks to EU membership, then average wages will trend down towards the minimum and productivity will fall through the floor. Ask anyone who dropped six figures on an automated car wash a few years ago how that investment turned out.
Last American to be involved with the Royal's was Wallis... And we all know how that turned out.
There was Koo Stark too. Still on good terms with Andrew, I believe.
How good?
Andrew is Godfather to her daughter, and she was character witness for him in the Epstein allegations apparently.
Indeed among Royal ex's she has been unusually dignified and unobtrusive. Perhaps an opportunity was missed for an eighties Meghan. The Royal Family has learned to be a bit less domineering over the years, and a bit more tolerant. Like the rest of society really.
Being in LA, I've heard a lot more Epstein stories than are public knowledge. To avoid running afoul of libel laws, I shan't be repeating them.
Nope. Tax credits may be why people are choosing to work. It is not why businesses are choosing to employ them.
I don't think that's right. It's cheaper to hire minimum wage workers than to invest in capital goods. Tax credits are economically extremely damaging but no government has the balls to do away with them.
I accept that there is a link between tax credits and low productivity. But I don't accept that is more of a problem than it was, say, 5 years ago. So the extra millions of workers over that time should be producing significantly more than we were 5 years ago even if the increase in employment is largely amongst the least productive. And we're not. Either we are measuring output wrongly or we are measuring employment wrongly. They can't both be right.
I don't know how you can accept the link between tax credits and low productivity without also accepting their link with low unemployment. They are two aspects of the same effect. That's not to say there aren't other factors that also affect productivity and unemployment, but it seems obvious to me that the UK's tax credit regime is a major contributing factor. Surely it is basic economics that if you artificially lower the cost of labour, then there will be more demand for labour?
I accept that tax credits reduce the price of labour and encourage businesses to employ more people than they would otherwise reducing capital investment and average productivity as a result. I also accept that tax credits reduce unemployment by making labour more attractive. But we have not been reducing the cost of that labour, we have been increasing it. The minimum wage has increased significantly more than average wages over that time. 5 years ago we had approximately 29.7m employed. We now have 32.3m. That is an increase of 2.6m or about 11%. In that time GDP has supposedly increased by 10%.
This means that our average productivity is now less than it was 5 years ago. I simply don't believe it. Either our output is higher or our employment is lower.
The redundancy figures are also not consistent with a pronounced "soft patch" although I accept that they might well be a lagging indicator. I honestly don't know what to think but our employment miracle is truly remarkable. Every time you think it has run out of steam there is another spurt. I just can't see why anyone is employing these additional hundreds of thousands of people to produce less.
Tax credits.
Nope. Tax credits may be why people are choosing to work. It is not why businesses are choosing to employ them.
I don't think that's right. It's cheaper to hire minimum wage workers than to invest in capital goods. Tax credits are economically extremely damaging but no government has the balls to do away with them.
I accept that there is a link between tax credits and low productivity. But I don't accept that is more of a problem than it was, say, 5 years ago. So the extra millions of workers over that time should be producing significantly more than we were 5 years ago even if the increase in employment is largely amongst the least productive. And we're not. Either we are measuring output wrongly or we are measuring employment wrongly. They can't both be right.
I don't know how you can accept the link between tax credits and low productivity without also accepting their link with low unemployment. They are two aspects of the same effect. That's not to say there aren't other factors that also affect productivity and unemployment, but it seems obvious to me that the UK's tax credit regime is a major contributing factor. Surely it is basic economics that if you artificially lower the cost of labour, then there will be more demand for labour?
Indeed, and if you artificially increase the supply of labour willing to work for (an artificially high tax credit supported) minimum wage to an almost unlimited level thanks to EU membership, then average wages will trend down towards the minimum and productivity will fall through the floor. Ask anyone who dropped six figures on an automated car wash a few years ago how that investment turned out.
If the net effect of tax credits is that people who would otherwise be unemployed are doing some sort of vaguely productive work, I don't see how that can be necessarily be considered an economic negative. Native Brits, in particular, have benefited from the tax credits and freedom of movement through low unemployment, immigrants to do all the menial stuff and low prices due to low production costs.
Last American to be involved with the Royal's was Wallis... And we all know how that turned out.
There was Koo Stark too. Still on good terms with Andrew, I believe.
How good?
Andrew is Godfather to her daughter, and she was character witness for him in the Epstein allegations apparently.
Indeed among Royal ex's she has been unusually dignified and unobtrusive. Perhaps an opportunity was missed for an eighties Meghan. The Royal Family has learned to be a bit less domineering over the years, and a bit more tolerant. Like the rest of society really.
Being in LA, I've heard a lot more Epstein stories than are public knowledge. To avoid running afoul of libel laws, I shan't be repeating them.
How many of the also unrepeatable Meghan Markle gossip column stories have you heard? Some Yankee rag is bound to go with it on Saturday, just because the Americans love a scandal.
Nope. Tax credits may be why people are choosing to work. It is not why businesses are choosing to employ them.
I don't think that's right. It's cheaper to hire minimum wage workers than to invest in capital goods. Tax credits are economically extremely damaging but no government has the balls to do away with them.
I accept that there is a link between tax credits and low productivity. But I don't accept that is more of a problem than it was, say, 5 years ago. So the extra millions of workers over that time should be producing significantly more than we were 5 years ago even if the increase in employment is largely amongst the least productive. And we're not. Either we are measuring output wrongly or we are measuring employment wrongly. They can't both be right.
I don't know how you can accept the link between tax credits and low productivity without also accepting their link with low unemployment. They are two aspects of the same effect. That's not to say there aren't other factors that also affect productivity and unemployment, but it seems obvious to me that the UK's tax credit regime is a major contributing factor. Surely it is basic economics that if you artificially lower the cost of labour, then there will be more demand for labour?
I accept that tax credits reduce the price of labour and encourage businesses to employ more people than they would otherwise reducing capital investment and average productivity as a result. I also accept that tax credits reduce unemployment by making labour more attractive. But we have not been reducing the cost of that labour, we have been increasing it. The minimum wage has increased significantly more than average wages over that time. 5 years ago we had approximately 29.7m employed. We now have 32.3m. That is an increase of 2.6m or about 11%. In that time GDP has supposedly increased by 10%.
This means that our average productivity is now less than it was 5 years ago. I simply don't believe it. Either our output is higher or our employment is lower.
Minimum wage doesn't apply if you're self-employed. And I think that many would struggle to feed and shelter a family on minimum wage without tax credits, thus making it unviable for them to take up minimum wage jobs without tax credits. So I just don't see any need for your incredulity. If tax credits make marginally productive work viable, then people will do it. Hence low employment and productivity.
As a corollary, if low productivity is primarily due to people taking up such marginally productive employment, then I don't see it as a major problem. Some, at least, of the UK's low productivity "problem" could be a red herring and not actually a problem at all.
Nope. Tax credits may be why people are choosing to work. It is not why businesses are choosing to employ them.
I don't think that's right. It's cheaper to hire minimum wage workers than to invest in capital goods. Tax credits are economically extremely damaging but no government has the balls to do away with them.
I accept that there is a link between tax credits and low productivity. But I don't accept that is more of a problem than it was, say, 5 years ago. So the extra millions of workers over that time should be producing significantly more than we were 5 years ago even if the increase in employment is largely amongst the least productive. And we're not. Either we are measuring output wrongly or we are measuring employment wrongly. They can't both be right.
I don't know how you can accept the link between tax credits and low productivity without also accepting their link with low unemployment. They are two aspects of the same effect. That's not to say there aren't other factors that also affect productivity and unemployment, but it seems obvious to me that the UK's tax credit regime is a major contributing factor. Surely it is basic economics that if you artificially lower the cost of labour, then there will be more demand for labour?
I accept that tax credits reduce the price of labour and encourage businesses to employ more people than they would otherwise reducing capital investment and average productivity as a result. I also accept that tax credits reduce unemployment by making labour more attractive. But we have not been reducing the cost of that labour, we have been increasing it. The minimum wage has increased significantly more than average wages over that time. 5 years ago we had approximately 29.7m employed. We now have 32.3m. That is an increase of 2.6m or about 11%. In that time GDP has supposedly increased by 10%.
This means that our average productivity is now less than it was 5 years ago. I simply don't believe it. Either our output is higher or our employment is lower.
I think you can see these two facts play out in the wage growth data and GDP per capita.
I don't think that's right. It's cheaper to hire minimum wage workers than to invest in capital goods. Tax credits are economically extremely damaging but no government has the balls to do away with them.
I accept that there is a link between tax credits and low productivity. But I don't accept that is more of a problem than it was, say, 5 years ago. So the extra millions of workers over that time should be producing significantly more than we were 5 years ago even if the increase in employment is largely amongst the least productive. And we're not. Either we are measuring output wrongly or we are measuring employment wrongly. They can't both be right.
I don't know how you can accept the link between tax credits and low productivity without also accepting their link with low unemployment. They are two aspects of the same effect. That's not to say there aren't other factors that also affect productivity and unemployment, but it seems obvious to me that the UK's tax credit regime is a major contributing factor. Surely it is basic economics that if you artificially lower the cost of labour, then there will be more demand for labour?
Indeed, and if you artificially increase the supply of labour willing to work for (an artificially high tax credit supported) minimum wage to an almost unlimited level thanks to EU membership, then average wages will trend down towards the minimum and productivity will fall through the floor. Ask anyone who dropped six figures on an automated car wash a few years ago how that investment turned out.
If the net effect of tax credits is that people who would otherwise be unemployed are doing some sort of vaguely productive work, I don't see how that can be necessarily be considered an economic negative. Native Brits, in particular, have benefited from the tax credits and freedom of movement through low unemployment, immigrants to do all the menial stuff and low prices due to low production costs.
IMO tax credits are the most pernicious government policy of the last 40 years. They make increasing numbers of people dependent on the state (and by design inclined to vote to people that will continue the largesse) and act as a massive pull factor for immigration from much poorer countries. There’s also a huge amount of unsustainable self-employment propped up by tax credits, including thousands of immigrant eBay sellers, Big Issue sellers and Uber drivers. Without tax credits there probably wouldn’t be Brexit.
As a corollary, if low productivity is primarily due to people taking up such marginally productive employment, then I don't see it as a major problem. Some, at least, of the UK's low productivity "problem" could be a red herring and not actually a problem at all.
That's correct. And from a societal point of view, bringing the marginally employable into the workforce is highly desirable.
If there are large numbers of people priced out the labour market (as is the case in France, for example, and to a lesser extent the US through healthcare costs) then you will have serious problems with an increasingly unemployable underclass.
As a corollary, if low productivity is primarily due to people taking up such marginally productive employment, then I don't see it as a major problem. Some, at least, of the UK's low productivity "problem" could be a red herring and not actually a problem at all.
That's correct. And from a societal point of view, bringing the marginally employable into the workforce is highly desirable.
If there are large numbers of people priced out the labour market (as is the case in France, for example, and to a lesser extent the US through healthcare costs) then you will have serious problems with an increasingly unemployable underclass.
That depends on who those marginally employable are.
Having the taxpayer subsidising marginally employable economic migrants is socioeconomic madness.
Low productivity and low output aren't the same thing. The former is a per-capita measure. Productivity obviously drops when employment costs are low because return on those costs is relatively greater than return on technological investment.
Nope. Tax credits may be why people are choosing to work. It is not why businesses are choosing to employ them.
I don't think that's right. It's cheaper to hire minimum wage workers than to invest in capital goods. Tax credits are economically extremely damaging but no government has the balls to do away with them.
I accept that there is a link between tax credits and low productivity. But I don't accept that is more of a problem than it was, say, 5 years ago. So the extra millions of workers over that time should be producing significantly more than we were 5 years ago even if the increase in employment is largely amongst the least productive. And we're not. Either we are measuring output wrongly or we are measuring employment wrongly. They can't both be right.
I don't know how you can accept the link between tax credits and low productivity without also accepting their link with low unemployment. They are two aspects of the same effect. That's not to say there aren't other factors that also affect productivity and unemployment, but it seems obvious to me that the UK's tax credit regime is a major contributing factor. Surely it is basic economics that if you artificially lower the cost of labour, then there will be more demand for labour?
I accept that tax credits reduce the price of labour and encourage businesses to employ more people than they would otherwise reducing capital investment and average productivity as a result. I also accept that tax credits reduce unemployment by making labour more attractive. But we have not been reducing the cost of that labour, we have been increasing it. The minimum wage has increased significantly more than average wages over that time. 5 years ago we had approximately 29.7m employed. We now have 32.3m. That is an increase of 2.6m or about 11%. In that time GDP has supposedly increased by 10%.
This means that our average productivity is now less than it was 5 years ago. I simply don't believe it. Either our output is higher or our employment is lower.
Probably output is higher. The ONS recently found the economy was £6.2 bn bigger in 2016 than previously thought.
Nope. Tax credits may be why people are choosing to work. It is not why businesses are choosing to employ them.
I don't think that's right. It's cheaper to hire minimum wage workers than to invest in capital goods. Tax credits are economically extremely damaging but no government has the balls to do away with them.
I don't know how you can accept the link between tax credits and low productivity without also accepting their link with low unemployment. They are two aspects of the same effect. That's not to say there aren't other factors that also affect productivity and unemployment, but it seems obvious to me that the UK's tax credit regime is a major contributing factor. Surely it is basic economics that if you artificially lower the cost of labour, then there will be more demand for labour?
I accept that tax credits reduce the price of labour and encourage businesses to employ more people than they would otherwise reducing capital investment and average productivity as a result. I also accept that tax credits reduce unemployment by making labour more attractive. But we have not been reducing the cost of that labour, we have been increasing it. The minimum wage has increased significantly more than average wages over that time. 5 years ago we had approximately 29.7m employed. We now have 32.3m. That is an increase of 2.6m or about 11%. In that time GDP has supposedly increased by 10%.
This means that our average productivity is now less than it was 5 years ago. I simply don't believe it. Either our output is higher or our employment is lower.
If the net effect of tax credits is that people who would otherwise be unemployed are doing some sort of vaguely productive work, I don't see how that can be necessarily be considered an economic negative. Native Brits, in particular, have benefited from the tax credits and freedom of movement through low unemployment, immigrants to do all the menial stuff and low prices due to low production costs.
IMO tax credits are the most pernicious government policy of the last 40 years. They make increasing numbers of people dependent on the state (and by design inclined to vote to people that will continue the largesse) and act as a massive pull factor for immigration from much poorer countries. There’s also a huge amount of unsustainable self-employment propped up by tax credits, including thousands of immigrant eBay sellers, Big Issue sellers and Uber drivers. Without tax credits there probably wouldn’t be Brexit.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of hand carwashers are on tax credits and what proportion are illegally working.
I also wonder how many of the 'Euromart' shops are being used for tax credit farming.
Nope. Tax credits may be why people are choosing to work. It is not why businesses are choosing to employ them.
I don't think that's right. It's cheaper to hire minimum wage workers than to invest in capital goods. Tax credits are economically extremely damaging but no government has the balls to do away with them.
I accept that there is a link between tax credits and low productivity. But I don't accept that is more of a problem than it was, say, 5 years ago. So the extra millions of workers over that time should be producing significantly more than we were 5 years ago even if the increase in employment is largely amongst the least productive. And we're not. Either we are measuring output wrongly or we are measuring employment wrongly. They can't both be right.
I don't know how you can accept the link between tax credits and low productivity without also accepting their link with low unemployment. They are two aspects of the same effect. That's not to say there aren't other factors that also affect productivity and unemployment, but it seems obvious to me that the UK's tax credit regime is a major contributing factor. Surely it is basic economics that if you artificially lower the cost of labour, then there will be more demand for labour?
I accept that tax credits reduce the price of labour and encourage businesses to employ more people than they would otherwise reducing capital investment and average productivity as a result. I also accept that tax credits reduce unemployment by making labour more attractive. But we have not been reducing the cost of that labour, we have been increasing it. The minimum wage has increased significantly more than average wages over that time. 5 years ago we had approximately 29.7m employed. We now have 32.3m. That is an increase of 2.6m or about 11%. In that time GDP has supposedly increased by 10%.
This means that our average productivity is now less than it was 5 years ago. I simply don't believe it. Either our output is higher or our employment is lower.
Probably output is higher. The ONS recently found the economy was £6.2 bn bigger in 2016 than previously thought.
I take their numbers with a large handful of sodium chloride.
I accept that tax credits reduce the price of labour and encourage businesses to employ more people than they would otherwise reducing capital investment and average productivity as a result. I also accept that tax credits reduce unemployment by making labour more attractive. But we have not been reducing the cost of that labour, we have been increasing it. The minimum wage has increased significantly more than average wages over that time. 5 years ago we had approximately 29.7m employed. We now have 32.3m. That is an increase of 2.6m or about 11%. In that time GDP has supposedly increased by 10%.
This means that our average productivity is now less than it was 5 years ago. I simply don't believe it. Either our output is higher or our employment is lower.
Next productivity bulletin, for Q1 2018, not out till 6 July.
The GDP chart is the same one as I used. GDP went from 443 to 492 over that time which I make 11%, (I think I had taken the percentage of the larger figure to start with). I also make the increase in output 3.2% not 3.8. Still, a bit better than I thought.
I accept that tax credits reduce the price of labour and encourage businesses to employ more people than they would otherwise reducing capital investment and average productivity as a result. I also accept that tax credits reduce unemployment by making labour more attractive. But we have not been reducing the cost of that labour, we have been increasing it. The minimum wage has increased significantly more than average wages over that time. 5 years ago we had approximately 29.7m employed. We now have 32.3m. That is an increase of 2.6m or about 11%. In that time GDP has supposedly increased by 10%.
This means that our average productivity is now less than it was 5 years ago. I simply don't believe it. Either our output is higher or our employment is lower.
Next productivity bulletin, for Q1 2018, not out till 6 July.
The GDP chart is the same one as I used. GDP went from 443 to 492 over that time which I make 11%, (I think I had taken the percentage of the larger figure to start with). I also make the increase in output 3.2% not 3.8. Still, a bit better than I thought.
GDP went from £443.411bn in Q1 2013 to £493.278bn in Q1 2018 (up 11.2%).
The 5-year productivity chart defaults to a start period of Q3 2013 - growth in output per worker is indeed 3.2% from then to Q4 2017, but over a full five years (from Q4 2012) it is 3.8%.
Can I just ask - does the total number of people in employment include everyone who is self-employed? I'm not sure the 'number of people in work' is a very useful measure. Be interesting to see how much change there is as a result of the £1000 trading allowance.
Nope. Tax credits may be why people are choosing to work. It is not why businesses are choosing to employ them.
I don't think that's right. It's cheaper to hire minimum wage workers than to invest in capital goods. Tax credits are economically extremely damaging but no government has the balls to do away with them.
I accept that there is a link between tax credits and low productivity. But I don't accept that is more of a problem than it was, say, 5 years ago. So the extra millions of workers over that time should be producing significantly more than we were 5 years ago even if the increase in employment is largely amongst the least productive. And we're not. Either we are measuring output wrongly or we are measuring employment wrongly. They can't both be right.
I don't know how you can accept the link between tax credits and low productivity without also accepting their link with low unemployment. They are two aspects of the same effect. That's not to say there aren't other factors that also affect productivity and unemployment, but it seems obvious to me that the UK's tax credit regime is a major contributing factor. Surely it is basic economics that if you artificially lower the cost of labour, then there will be more demand for labour?
I accept that tax credits reduce the price of labour and encourage businesses to employ more people than they would otherwise reducing capital investment and average productivity as a result. I also accept that tax credits reduce unemployment by making labour more attractive. But we have not been reducing the cost of that labour, we have been increasing it. The minimum wage has increased significantly more than average wages over that time. 5 years ago we had approximately 29.7m employed. We now have 32.3m. That is an increase of 2.6m or about 11%. In that time GDP has supposedly increased by 10%.
This means that our average productivity is now less than it was 5 years ago. I simply don't believe it. Either our output is higher or our employment is lower.
Probably output is higher. The ONS recently found the economy was £6.2 bn bigger in 2016 than previously thought.
I take their numbers with a large handful of sodium chloride.
Was that the change as a result of including drugs and prostitution?
Next productivity bulletin, for Q1 2018, not out till 6 July.
The GDP chart is the same one as I used. GDP went from 443 to 492 over that time which I make 11%, (I think I had taken the percentage of the larger figure to start with). I also make the increase in output 3.2% not 3.8. Still, a bit better than I thought.
GDP went from £443.411bn in Q1 2013 to £493.278bn in Q1 2018 (up 11.2%).
The 5-year productivity chart defaults to a start period of Q3 2013 - growth in output per worker is indeed up 3.2% from then to Q4 2017, but over a full five years (from Q4 2012) it is up 3.8%.
As I have repeatedly said the figures for employment are astonishing. The number of businesses in Edinburgh looking to take on staff is higher than I have ever seen it. I still have real reservations about whether this is being adequately caught in the GDP figures.
I am struggling to see where all this demand for labour is coming from if demand in the economy as a whole is not much short of flat after the wage squeeze.
Next productivity bulletin, for Q1 2018, not out till 6 July.
The GDP chart is the same one as I used. GDP went from 443 to 492 over that time which I make 11%, (I think I had taken the percentage of the larger figure to start with). I also make the increase in output 3.2% not 3.8. Still, a bit better than I thought.
GDP went from £443.411bn in Q1 2013 to £493.278bn in Q1 2018 (up 11.2%).
The 5-year productivity chart defaults to a start period of Q3 2013 - growth in output per worker is indeed up 3.2% from then to Q4 2017, but over a full five years (from Q4 2012) it is up 3.8%.
As I have repeatedly said the figures for employment are astonishing. The number of businesses in Edinburgh looking to take on staff is higher than I have ever seen it. I still have real reservations about whether this is being adequately caught in the GDP figures.
I am struggling to see where all this demand for labour is coming from if demand in the economy as a whole is not much short of flat after the wage squeeze.
Is part of the story the underground economy going legit?
Can I just ask - does the total number of people in employment include everyone who is self-employed? I'm not sure the 'number of people in work' is a very useful measure. Be interesting to see how much change there is as a result of the £1000 trading allowance.
Yes it does.
Comparing the estimates for employees and self-employed people for January to March 2018 with those for a year earlier:
- employees increased by 480,000 to 27.43 million (84.8% of all people in work)
- self-employed people decreased by 38,000 to 4.75 million (14.7% of all people in work)
As a corollary, if low productivity is primarily due to people taking up such marginally productive employment, then I don't see it as a major problem. Some, at least, of the UK's low productivity "problem" could be a red herring and not actually a problem at all.
That's correct. And from a societal point of view, bringing the marginally employable into the workforce is highly desirable.
If there are large numbers of people priced out the labour market (as is the case in France, for example, and to a lesser extent the US through healthcare costs) then you will have serious problems with an increasingly unemployable underclass.
That all assumes the marginal level is fixed. Actually, you could invest more in computers and better processes to raise the productivity level of workers, the margins could be higher productivity and higher wage.
Comments
That said, Discovery's Federation, where apparently court martial's are conducted by a panel of admirals with faces covered in shadow in a room that is near pitch black but for a spotlight on the accused like some kind of anonymous show trial for some reason, may be taking it too far!
The next thread will be on the betting odds on the next Federation President.
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
Indeed among Royal ex's she has been unusually dignified and unobtrusive. Perhaps an opportunity was missed for an eighties Meghan. The Royal Family has learned to be a bit less domineering over the years, and a bit more tolerant. Like the rest of society really.
Should have colonised far more countries for longer.
This means that our average productivity is now less than it was 5 years ago. I simply don't believe it. Either our output is higher or our employment is lower.
And it seems really strange they got so worked up over tea when the buggers only ever drink
liquid pigshitcoffee anyway.Some Yankee rag is bound to go with it on Saturday, just because the Americans love a scandal.
As a corollary, if low productivity is primarily due to people taking up such marginally productive employment, then I don't see it as a major problem. Some, at least, of the UK's low productivity "problem" could be a red herring and not actually a problem at all.
I enjoyed STD.
Wait, that didn't come out right.
If there are large numbers of people priced out the labour market (as is the case in France, for example, and to a lesser extent the US through healthcare costs) then you will have serious problems with an increasingly unemployable underclass.
Having the taxpayer subsidising marginally employable economic migrants is socioeconomic madness.
People in work: +8.4%
Hours worked: +8.2%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/may2018#actual-hours-worked
Real GDP: +11.2%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/abmi/pgdp
Q4 2012 to Q4 2017
Output per worker: +3.8%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/labourproductivity/timeseries/a4ym/prdy
Next productivity bulletin, for Q1 2018, not out till 6 July.
I also wonder how many of the 'Euromart' shops are being used for tax credit farming.
mid-2011 to mid-2016: +3.7%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/timeseries/ukpop/pop
We have to wait till next month to get 2017 figures.
The 5-year productivity chart defaults to a start period of Q3 2013 - growth in output per worker is indeed 3.2% from then to Q4 2017, but over a full five years (from Q4 2012) it is 3.8%.
Another aspect of the jobs miracle - there are more than 800,000 vacancies, down slightly on prior months but near the highest since comparable records began in 2001.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/may2018#vacancies
I am struggling to see where all this demand for labour is coming from if demand in the economy as a whole is not much short of flat after the wage squeeze.
Comparing the estimates for employees and self-employed people for January to March 2018 with those for a year earlier:
- employees increased by 480,000 to 27.43 million (84.8% of all people in work)
- self-employed people decreased by 38,000 to 4.75 million (14.7% of all people in work)
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/may2018#employment