UK unemployment rises by 10,000
bbc.co.uk/news/business-37701672Posted Oct 19, 2016, 8:40 AM UTC
4825
bbc.co.uk
| Nums in thousands. %s of workforce | Latest | 2010 election | 2005 election | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population 16+ | 52,471 | 50,117 | 47,891 | |||
| _Economically Active | 33,467 | 100.0% | 31,651 | 100.0% | 30,215 | 100.0% |
| __Employed | 31,811 | 95.1% | 29,144 | 92.1% | 28,780 | 95.3% |
| ___Employees | 26,830 | 80.2% | 24,960 | 78.9% | 24,926 | 82.5% |
| ____Full Time | 19,743 | 59.0% | 18,278 | 57.7% | 18,551 | 61.4% |
| ____Part Time | 7,088 | 21.2% | 6,683 | 21.1% | 6,375 | 21.1% |
| ___Self Employed | 4,792 | 14.3% | 3,959 | 12.5% | 3,637 | 12.0% |
| ____Full Time | 3,432 | 10.3% | 2,932 | 9.3% | 2,820 | 9.3% |
| ____Part Time | 1,360 | 4.1% | 1,027 | 3.2% | 817 | 2.7% |
| ___Unpaid family workers | 121 | 0.4% | 93 | 0.3% | 102 | 0.3% |
| ___Workfare etc. | 67 | 0.2% | 131 | 0.4% | 114 | 0.4% |
| ___Total Full Time | 23,228 | 69.4% | 21,265 | 67.2% | 21,452 | 71.0% |
| ___Total Part Time | 8,583 | 25.6% | 7,878 | 24.9% | 7,327 | 24.2% |
| ____Could not find full-time job | 1,143 | 3.4% | 1,073 | 3.4% | 585 | 1.9% |
| ____Did not want full-time job | 5,916 | 17.7% | 5,280 | 16.7% | 5,270 | 17.4% |
| ____Ill or disabled | 250 | 0.7% | 167 | 0.5% | 168 | 0.6% |
| ____Student or at school | 1,096 | 3.3% | 1,148 | 3.6% | 1,138 | 3.8% |
| ____Other Reason | 178 | 0.5% | 210 | 0.7% | 166 | 0.5% |
| ___Temporary Workers | 1,658 | 5.0% | 1,541 | 4.9% | 1,445 | 4.8% |
| ____Could not find permanent job | 511 | 1.5% | 554 | 1.8% | 357 | 1.2% |
| ____Did not want permanent job | 438 | 1.3% | 375 | 1.2% | 380 | 1.3% |
| ____Had a contract with period of training | 129 | 0.4% | 80 | 0.3% | 105 | 0.3% |
| ____Other reason | 580 | 1.7% | 532 | 1.7% | 603 | 2.0% |
| ___Workers with Second Jobs | 1,162 | 3.5% | 1,134 | 3.6% | 1,084 | 3.6% |
| __Unemployed | 1,656 | 4.9% | 2,508 | 7.9% | 1,436 | 4.8% |
| ___For Under 6 months | 962 | 2.9% | 1,185 | 3.7% | 918 | 3.0% |
| ___For more than 2 years | 246 | 0.7% | 303 | 1.0% | 139 | 0.5% |
| ___18 to 24 year olds | 491 | 1.5% | 719 | 2.3% | 427 | 1.4% |
| _Economically Inactive | 19,004 | 18,466 | 17,676 | |||
| __Over Working Age (65+) | 10,195 | 9,033 | 8,619 | |||
| __Working Age (16-64) | 8,809 | 9,433 | 9,057 | |||
| ___Student | 2,268 | 2,288 | 1,793 | |||
| ___Looking after family / home | 2,202 | 2,352 | 2,427 | |||
| ___Temp sick | 162 | 182 | 190 | |||
| ___Long-term sick | 2,007 | 2,233 | 2,311 | |||
| ___Discouraged workers | 35 | 71 | 42 | |||
| ___Retired | 1,155 | 1,513 | 1,410 | |||
| ___Other Reason | 981 | 794 | 885 | |||
| __Working Age Split by whether want job | ||||||
| ___Does Not Want a Job | 6,658 | 7,049 | 6,935 | |||
| ___Wants a Job | 2,151 | 2,383 | 2,123 | |||
| _Job Vacancies | 750 | 2.2% | 480 | 1.5% | 642 | 2.1% |
| Claimant Count | 769 | 2.3% | 1,526 | 4.8% | 840 | 2.8% |
| Average Weekly Hours Worked | 32.0 | 31.5 | 32.1 | |||
| _Full Time | 37.4 | 36.9 | 37.2 | |||
| _Part Time | 16.1 | 15.6 | 15.7 | |||
| Average Weekly Earnings | 473.0 | 424.0 | 363.0 | |||
| _At 2000 prices | 365.0 | 367.0 | 358.0 | |||
| Unemployment - France | 10.3% | 9.3% | 8.7% | |||
| Unemployment - Germany | 4.2% | 7.2% | 11.1% | |||
| Unemployment - United States | 4.9% | 9.9% | 5.2% |
#Explanations, caveats and answers to common questions.
The level of unemployment is not calculated from the number of people on out-of-work benefits so sanctions or the actions of job centres will not (directly) affect it. These figures are based on a survey called the Labour Force Survey which samples tens of thousands of people every quarter. There are unemployed who are not entitled to out-of-work benefits (e.g. those with a large household income due to a spouse, those with large savings, or those on sanctions) and there are people who claim JSA but are not unemployed (e.g. those who work less than a certain number of hours or fraudsters), so the two are not the same. The number of people claiming out-of-work benefits is reported separately as the Claimant Count.
Zero-hour contracts are not regularly measured (Latest data available), however there is some regular measure of “underemployment” by measuring those who are in part-time work but wish to be in full-time work. People self-select whether they are full time or part time. Equally those on temporary contracts who wish to be permanent are counted. (See above for these figures)
The rate of unemployment is an economic measure of spare labour in the workforce not a political measure of how well a government is doing at making sure everyone is happy with their job situation. Those on workfare, government training programmes or unpaid internships are not counted as unemployed; they do not currently have spare labour to add to the economy. However those on “Government supported training & employment programmes” are reported separately so you may recast the figures should you wish. (See above for these figures)
The definition of unemployment requires someone to be actively seeking work in the last four weeks and able to start work in the next two weeks. Those who are out of work and say they want a job but don’t meet this definition are reported separately under Inactive. (See above for these figures)
The figures are calculated by the independent Office of National Statistics based on internationally agreed conventions. The government cannot interfere with the calculation of the figures or set the way in which they are calculated. However knowing how the numbers are calculated does mean governments can set policy accordingly and create targets which may not be in the best interest of the public.
The numbers are seasonally adjusted, so there should be no effect from things such as Christmas jobs.
The estimates presented are based on a survey and as such are subject to sampling error. The uncertainty in the estimate is captured by the 95% confidence interval e.g. the 95% confidence interval for the unemployment rates is ± 0.2%. The numbers are best understood in terms of the trends they show over time.
14
In 2005, there were 47.8m people 16+, of which 30.2m (63%) were economically active.
Today there are 52.4m people 16+ of which 33.4m (63%) are economically active.
So those 5m extra 16+ people haven't changed the proportion of the population who are economically active.
Does this mean they're not actually coming over here and stealing our jobs?
1
Headline is a bit surprising but looking at the stub article right now it seems to suggest the rise is caused by more people looking for work as they employment figures themselves were unchanged.
6
Going from the ONS, this doesn't seem at all bad. Employment grew higher than unemployment, so it's just that there are more people actively looking for work.
5
Well no shit! I work 20-30 hours per week +OT at just above minimum wage. I live in a very cheap area in a one bedroom 1st floor flat, don't have heating on much, barely eat and still struggle with bills and council tax. I was actually better off ont dole.
Edit: typo
3
Well what are you spending your money on then?
1
Rent, c/t, gas, water, electric, phone, tv licence, travel to/from work, paying off old overdraft, paying off credit card, repaying "overpayment of working tax credit" and maybe just maybe some food.
3
paying off old overdraft, paying off credit card,
Yeah, I feel that was a bit of key info you missed out on.
1
Although it is a very large survey, there is still a margin of error. The ONS says it is 95% confident that the figure of a 10,000 rise in unemployment is correct to within 79,000. As the estimated change is smaller than the margin of error, it means the change in unemployment is not statistically significant
This is meaningless unless supported in later surveys.
1
[deleted]
-2
Read the article. Unemployment rates have not changed.
3
When I saw this on the BBC website earlier this morning it said it rose by 10,000. Presumably still did when this was posted here.
1
The figure of employed people as risen, yes, but it's such a minor rise that the overall rate of unemployment hasn't changed.
1
[deleted]
-1
And the reward for the most people only going by the title and not reading the article goes to....
BBC did a swaparooney and its now 'UK unemployment rate holds steady'
I noticed that. I got a pop up saying unemployment had risen by 10,000, click it and it takes me to an article saying it's a steady rise. Pretty cheeky of them.
It's a common thing with them now. See it all the time especially on the sports page. Mcnulty's articles usually has three different titles one for morning, one for night and one for tomorrow just to keep people clicking thinking it's a new take when it's just the same bloody article.
Someones behind the scenes, 1984ing this shit.
So wait, it has gone up by a bit but the headline is staying its steady? Or did they write the headline before they got the numbers? I mean the article does say that it has risen and I swear a few months ago a similar drop in the unemployment rate was headlined as a drop.
Why is this not being headlined as a raise in the numbers :/
[edit] Looking back 40-50k is enough for there to be a change, guess 10k is too small. Still makes the current BBC headline a bit inaccurate tho. If my personal finances had dropped by 10k I wouldn't' claim they are holding steady :P
It seems it's just a steady rise.
d2u/dt2 = 0, where u = unemployment and t = time.
Do not editorialise titles. It is right there on the side bar
"UK unemployment rises by 10,000" was the actual BBC title when this was submitted.
The BBC changed the title, not me lol. A moderator should probably hide this or something.
BBC changed it...
The BBC regularly change their titles post publication. He could have copied and pasted the original title, which the Beeb subsequently changed.