Has the UK got a hidden unemployment problem?

Redwurzel

Redwurzel

Well-known member
There are 5.3m people claiming out of work benefits in the UK and only 1 million vacancies. This suggests to me we have an unemployment problem in the UK, but it is hidden because the official unemployment of 1.3m does not record the majority of people claiming out of work benefits.

I suspect the majoroity of the job vacancies are in areas of the UK where there is a shortage of workers too. So there are areras of the UK where nearly 40% of the workforce are claiming out of work benefits. I don't write this to criticise those people, but to highlight lack of fulll time paid work opportunities.

Overall this suggests to me there is some form of unemployment problem in parts of the UK which no one is really admitting to.

In recent years many politicians and economists etc seem all to agree we have full employment or close to in the UK, but this to me is not true. Of course most of thse are based in the London area or live in that area. Ken Loach's recent film seem to highlight communities without significant paid work, although it was not a major theme of the film.
 
The 5.3m is welfare benefits for people not working but of working age. Generally the benefits are low for the whole of this group, but above the equivalent of job seekers allowance (about £82/week). The 1.5m ish figure is people who sign on every fortnight but I believe they are the minority of the unemployed. My guess is the real unemployment figure is over 3.5m, but most politicians including Labour ones want to hide this, especially if they are in power.
 
Last edited:
There are of people on PIP, DLA or ESA within that 5.3 million figure who are considered unable to work. There are about 5.5 million people on these benefits and could be that 30-40% are either unable to work or have a very limited capacity to work. there is a large % who receive these benefits and also work. It is very difficult to estimate how many of them would be available for work if the jobs were there so not sure how you have calculated it would be 2 million of them in addition to those who attend. The upward trend of people considered unable to work is a big worry going forward
 
When you look around the towns it's obvious that there are problems with unemployment and rates of pay.

We've had an unemployment problem since the late 70's and no single government has made a real attempt to address it. They've simply changed ways of measuring it.

If unemployment wasn't a major problem rates of pay would be a lot higher than they are. Thatcher aimed for a reserve army of labour to reduce working class power. She chose to spend on unemployment benefit (a big cost due to the numbers involved) rather than communicate with trade unions and invest in our essential industries. No government has addressed this since.
 
Robborevolution said:
There are of people on PIP, DLA or ESA within that 5.3 million figure who are considered unable to work. There are about 5.5 million people on these benefits and could be that 30-40% are either unable to work or have a very limited capacity to work. there is a large % who receive these benefits and also work. It is very difficult to estimate how many of them would be available for work if the jobs were there so not sure how you have calculated it would be 2 million of them in addition to those who attend. The upward trend of people considered unable to work is a big worry going forward
Click to expand...
Cheers for your post - My calculation is an educated guess, but does take into account the figure for registered disabled of working age who don't work. I would not say it was accurate but there is a disparity to me between the figure for those (non working people) claiming welfare and the official unemployed.

What I think is happening is the real rate of unemployment is too low. Possibly some people with diasabilities are been pushed out of the paid workforce is one factor. Another possibiity is people are being encouraged to claim sickness related benefits rather than non sickness related benefits. possibly because they are judged by Job Centre staff as too difficult to find work or by even potential employers. Another factor could be a growth in people who are judged unemployable and for who training is not suitable or not available or ignored by the unemployed person.

Faced with a struggle to find and retain employment people are trying to move onto benefit linked to inability to work. In some ways I understand when faced with claiming a benefit of around £82 a week becaise they are unable to find work. Living wage is around £320 per week after taxes, so even with housing related welfare benefits there is a significant financial advantage to work, given a choice so this dismisses the old argument of been better off on the dole for the vast majority of people.
 
It'd be easier described as a ' not worth doing ' issue.
There's an extraordinary amount of minimum wage/ zero contract ' positions available...
That is inappropriate for the position ( i.e care worker .. really do we think providing care for our parents / grandparents is worth the minimum wage )
The NHS / social care / teaching system is full of vacancies.
Problem is .. who wants to do 7.30am out , home at 5 ( at best ) then work after for 14 k to 22k before tax / pension etc.
Pop child care costs in .. why would you ?
 
I understand working long hours for say £320 take home, seems a poor return for say devoting 9.5 hours a day to a job, but what are these people living on if they are not working?

Again I acknowledge the child costs issue, bring home £320 and then spending £280 per week on child care costs for say 2 children, but these parents can't claim universal credit if fit and not actively looking for work.

There are 1 million official job vacancies - is it that most jobs are not advertised? - so the real figure is say 2.5m vacancies?
 
There will be an element of choice in some people, where they could do more hours but after childcare it becomes less worth it especially if other benefits drop but I don't think that is the norm.

Not benefit related but my friends wife works reduced hours because of childcare, she could go back to full time and be a full FTE for her company but by the time she pays for the extra childcare needed she would be no better off.

I don't begrudge anyone on benefits really, people will talk about how they get all the boilers free and other schemes like that, if you don't qualify for those schemes you should be glad you have an ok wage coming in. Yes times are hard but the fact you dont qualify means you have an income above a set level. People on benefits are never going to afford a new boiler. People act like this is something being taken from them when it's a scheme targeted at the MOST in need and by definition you don't fit into that category.

People on benefits get a pittance compared to that and it's not a life of luxury when energy bills can be £200 a month or above for families yet people vilify you because you've got a flatscreen tv which might have cost £100
 
Just to make it clear I think benefits are in general are low and I believe many more people want to work than are shown and the point of my post is this is not being reported by the media or in the stats.

Lodger I will try and find some evidence I was going on what I heard quoted/read in the past. The two areas it was reported about were former mining communities of East Durham and Merthr Tydfil in south Wales or 1 in 3 on sickness benefits, add in other on jobseekers and you get near 40%.
 
The Tories are the party for big business. Big business needs cheap labour. Labour is cheapest when unemployment is high because there is more competition for jobs. Excess labour supply can be achieved by high unemployment and/or high immigration. They prefer high immigration to high unemployment because high unemployment costs money in benefits. High unemployment is bad PR though so hiding the high unemployment in the figures whilst making sure there is high competition for jobs is the best of both worlds.

As for pay being too low. This isn't just a low wage issue. Wages are low in the UK compared to similar economies. Compare any profession in the US to the UK and the difference is staggering. We get some things they don't like healthcare, holidays and pensions but even after all that is taken into account we get paid significantly less than they do. Where we are better than the US is the low end where we at least have benefits, healthcare etc for the low paid (and unpaid) which seems like a fair trade-off but it doesn't need to if the very top weren't able to extract so much without contributing fairly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top