Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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?"
Leave a comment: