The Good News thread, local jobs, economy etc

[leicsmac]

We've been through this before. These are jobs that businesses wouldn't ordinarily pay for. They'll only take them on if funded by government.

 

Fair enough...so why should these businesses get these staff (essentially) for free then? I suppose the person could get a decent reference out of it for possible future work but I don't really see the benefit to the country if they're still taking public money while working.

[Zingari]

Are those the jobs they are proposing for people to do? I haven't seen anything to that effect.

Sorry I thought street cleaning  was on the agenda for conscripted labour duties .

 

But I was just giving examples of jobs that private companies don't want to pay for  . Even MPs fall into that category for most people 

[MooseBreath]

Fair enough...so why should these businesses get these staff (essentially) for free then? I suppose the person could get a decent reference out of it for possible future work but I don't really see the benefit to the country if they're still taking public money while working.

The business will still have to accommodate them so it's not a completely free lunch. Yes if they manage it well they will get a cheap productivity boost from it. But then stronger businesses aren't a bad thing.

The claimant gets work experience, a reference but more importantly gets back into the habit of work and a feeling of increased self-worth all of which should make finding proper employment that much easier. Then of course it also acts as a deterrent against those who think they can sit around all day doing nothing and get paid for it.

It doesn't cost the public anymore, infact should cost us less when you factor in the increased business productivity leading to increased tax take and eventual higher employment etc.

As I said before I'm skeptical about this scheme because I don't think the public sector admin departments have what it takes to manage this robustly to ensure it doesn't get exploited, but can see no real harm in giving it a go for a while under careful observation.

[Zingari]

Can we be clear about what jobs benefit claimants would be expected to do for JSA etc. I thought when this kite was flown  it was all about cleaning graphiti , canal bank clearence, park cleaning etc .?

 

Is it now being put forward as a free source of labour for private companies? 

[leicsmac]

The business will still have to accommodate them so it's not a completely free lunch. Yes if they manage it well they will get a cheap productivity boost from it. But then stronger businesses aren't a bad thing.

The claimant gets work experience, a reference but more importantly gets back into the habit of work and a feeling of increased self-worth all of which should make finding proper employment that much easier. Then of course it also acts as a deterrent against those who think they can sit around all day doing nothing and get paid for it.

It doesn't cost the public anymore, infact should cost us less when you factor in the increased business productivity leading to increased tax take and eventual higher employment etc.

As I said before I'm skeptical about this scheme because I don't think the public sector admin departments have what it takes to manage this robustly to ensure it doesn't get exploited, but can see no real harm in giving it a go for a while under careful observation.

 

Well, I still think that if a company wants any kind of productivity boost they should pay minimum wage for it and take the risk themselves (the essence of a free market, after all) but can't deny that getting people working is a good idea from a confidence perspective. 

 

I wouldn't mind seeing a lower benefits and lower tax for lower earners approach adopted though, along with incentives for companies to take on more workers - just purely for the purposes of stability. The working environment seems far too short-term right now which isn't exactly good for long-term life planning, but possibly that's just the way things are going.

 

As an aside, I would also be in favour of a rule where if a benefit claimant is offered two full-time jobs in order to get off benefits and turn them down without a very good reason, then they should have their benefits reduced drastically. 

[MooseBreath]

Definitely agree with lower tax/lower benefits. For you average person the scheme is an arse backwards way of doing things. Problem is if it was up to employers to choose who they want to employ, and up to the job seekers to find and apply for the job, then the employers would rather employ the people with the best work ethic and skills, and the worst job seekers wouldn't put any effort into finding and getting the job. So you'd still be left with this cohort of unemployed people sitting around on benefits.

Of course the solution to the problem is a blanket ban on benefits. But while they would draw the shirkers out of the woodwork, it would also cause real suffering to those who genuinely can't work. At that point you'd reinstate the welfare state focussed solely on those who you now know for sure are in need of help, but the interim suffering would be political suicide so it'll never happen.

[purpleronnie]

 

UK thriving again with bosses taking on staff at fastest rate for six years and third quarter growth of 1.3% predicted

• Increase in activity led to jobs growth as bosses expand workforces
• GDP growth above 1% expected for July-September period
• The economy is set to expand at its fastest level since the financial crisis

By This Is Money Reporter

PUBLISHED:12:10, 3 October 2013| UPDATED:16:56, 3 October 2013

 The increasing pace of the economic recovery was confirmed today when it emerged that the services sector had grown at its fastest pace for 16 years.

The success of Britain's dominant sector in the third quarter of this year prompted predictions that growth could be as high as 1.3 per cent - the highest level since before the start of the financial crisis.

When combined with a strong performance by the manufacturing and construction sectors, economists said today's evidence pointed to a significant improvement on the 0.7 per cent achieved in the second quarter.

Rate forecast: Recent services figures are likely to add to growing conviction on markets that the Bank of England will raise the historically low 0.5 per cent interest rate by early 2015

 

 

 

Howard Archer, economist at IHS Global Insight, said the recent figures were likely to add to growing conviction on markets that the Bank of England will raise the historically low 0.5 per cent interest rate by early 2015.

The closely watched Markit/CIPS purchasing managers' index showed that quarterly services activity - accounting for around three-quarters of UK output - increased at the highest rate since the second quarter of 1997.

 

 

 

 

However, the standalone September reading of 60.3 for services marked a slight fall from August's seven-year high of 60.5 and followed a slight slowing in expansion also recorded for manufacturing and construction. A figure above 50 indicates growth and one below contraction.

The services sector figures showed that increases in activity and new business led to solid jobs growth after a slowdown in August, as rising backlogs of work prompted bosses to add to payrolls. It means the sector has been growing continuously over nine months.

As a result, overall employment recorded the fastest rise in six years last month, Markit added, forecasting that hefty amounts of outstanding business would continue to drive hiring.

Firms reported improved business confidence leading to a greater willingness to commit to new contracts.

Dominant sector: Services activity accounts for three-quarters of UK output

However fuel inflation and some rising wages saw operating costs continue to soar, with companies unable to pass them on because of price competition.

Archer said the services figures were very good news despite September's marginal dip in the activity index from an 80-month high in August.

'This is still a hugely impressive survey indicating that services sector activity remained elevated in September thereby completing a strong third quarter. Furthermore, ongoing robust incoming new business in September and elevated confidence indicate that the services sector is entering into the fourth quarter with strong momentum.

He added: 'GDP growth looks likely to have been close to 1 per cent quarter-on-quarter in the third quarter. While we believe domestic demand likely grew by at least 1 per cent in the third quarter, we suspect that negative trade may have limited GDP growth to 0.9 per cent quarter-on-quarter.

 

Vicky Redwood of Capital Economics said the figures were 'more evidence that the recovery is becoming well-entrenched'.

She said that taken together the surveys from all three sectors suggested gross domestic product growth of 1.3 per cent in the third quarter, but it was likely to be around 1.2 per cent when other factors such as retail sales and industrial production were included.

 

Jobs boost: Increases in activity and new business saw a return to solid employment growth after a slowdown in August

But official GDP data, which has been a little less optimistic than the surveys, suggested this 'might be a tall order' and she also gave a third quarter forecast of 0.9 per cent.

Chris Williamson, chief economist at survey compilers Markit, said growth in the services sector was being led by financial services - linked to increased housing market activity - and the business sector.

However, consumer services continued to suffer amid the continuing squeeze on household incomes due to weak pay growth lagging behind inflation.

But he said: 'There are encouraging signs that the strong pace of expansion will persist in the coming months.'

Surveys showed the mood among households improving, he added. He said the figures for services, manufacturing and construction suggested the economy had grown up to 1.2 per cent in the third quarter, though output in total would remain 2.2 per cent off its pre-crisis peak.

David Noble, chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply, said: 'After nearly six lost years of economic output, the UK economy looks to have really found its feet.

'The numbers reflect the stability we are currently seeing in the global economy, and the services sector is taking full advantage.'

 

 

[Guest MattP]

More good news for George Osbourne, talk of reversing his economical policy has all but vanished now. Very embarrassing for some.

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1151741/economy-imf-makes-uk-growth-forecast-u-turn

 

 

Economy: IMF Makes UK Growth Forecast U-Turn

Red faces at the International Monetary Fund as it upgrades its expectations for the UK just months after a "damning downgrade".

3:39pm UK, Tuesday 08 October 2013

USChinaJapanRussiaGermanyUKFranceItalySpainUpdated GDP growth/contraction projections for major world economies during 2013(red indicates downgrade while blue marks an upgrade)1.6%7.6%2%1.5%0.5%1.4%0.2%-1.8%-1.3%

Source: IMF Global Economic Outlook

Graph: The IMF's Updated GDP Projections

Enlarge

 

The IMF's chief economist Olivier Blanchard denies getting his fingers burned on the path to recovery in the UK.

Video: IMF's Blanchard Denies 'Getting Fingers Burned' Over UK

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has upgraded its forecast for UK economic growth by more than any other major economy, in a boost to the Chancellor's fortunes.

It comes only six months after the IMF downgraded its expectations for the British economy and warned that George Osborne's policies were the economic equivalent of "playing with fire".

In its six-monthly World Economic Outlook, the IMF predicted that the UK's gross domestic product - the broadest measure of economic growth - would increase by 1.4% this year and 1.9% in 2014.

That compares with a forecast of just 0.9% and 1.5% respectively when it last updated its projections in July.

It came as the IMF downgraded its forecast for global GDP this year by 0.3 percentage points to 2.9%.

The rapid change in attitude will be welcomed by the Chancellor, who is due to attend the IMF’s annual meeting in Washington later this week.

In April, IMF chief economist Olivier Blanchard warned that austerity policies of the kind Mr Osborne was carrying out were "playing with fire" and urged him to change course.

However, over the following months, the IMF appeared to water down its prescription.

Treasury insiders see today's forecast revision as a tacit acknowledgement that Mr Osborne's original course was the right one.

Edited 9 October 2013 by MattP

[Zingari]

However, the text of the IMF report itself did not offer a ringing endorsement of the UK economy.

"In the United Kingdom, recent data have shown welcome signs of an improving economy, consistent with increasing consumer and business confidence, but output remains well below its pre-crisis peak … output levels will remain below potential for many years," it said.

Shadow chancellor Ed Balls said: "After three wasted years of flatlining it's good that we finally have some growth. But this is the slowest recovery for 100 years and working people are worse off as prices continue rising faster than wages.

"Despite these welcome changes to its forecasts the IMF rightly warns that the UK economy will remain below potential for many years.

"That's why the IMF has repeated its view that the Government should bring forward infrastructure investment now, which could be used to build thousands of affordable homes.

[MooseBreath]

However, the text of the IMF report itself did not offer a ringing endorsement of the UK economy.

"In the United Kingdom, recent data have shown welcome signs of an improving economy, consistent with increasing consumer and business confidence, but output remains well below its pre-crisis peak … output levels will remain below potential for many years," it said.

Shadow chancellor Ed Balls said: "After three wasted years of flatlining it's good that we finally have some growth. But this is the slowest recovery for 100 years and working people are worse off as prices continue rising faster than wages.

"Despite these welcome changes to its forecasts the IMF rightly warns that the UK economy will remain below potential for many years.

"That's why the IMF has repeated its view that the Government should bring forward infrastructure investment now, which could be used to build thousands of affordable homes.

"We got everything horribly wrong, HOWEVER we're still going to make guesses because we just don't give a fvck anymore. Nobody listens to us anyway."

[Guest MattP]

Shadow chancellor Ed Balls said: "After three wasted years of flatlining it's good that we finally have some growth. But this is the slowest recovery for 100 years and working people are worse off as prices continue rising faster than wages.

"Despite these welcome changes to its forecasts the IMF rightly warns that the UK economy will remain below potential for many years.

 

Changed his tune hasn't he.

 

"Austerity doesn't work" "This will lead to zero growth" "A triple dip recession is on the way"

 

You know Labour are losing the economic argument again when they have to resort to the "hard working families" and "prices are rising" lines.

Edited 9 October 2013 by MattP

[Zingari]

"We got everything horribly wrong, HOWEVER we're still going to make guesses because we just don't give a fvck anymore. Nobody listens to us anyway."

Are you talking about labour or the IMF ? 

[Guest MattP]

Are you talking about labour or the IMF ? 

 

[Alf Bentley]

I'm surprised to see growth at all, I must admit, as my impression was that most consumers, businesses and public sector bodies were skint.

 

However, with growth, it's always worth asking: who is spending and what are they buying?

 

Obviously, it's not the domestic public sector or export markets that are buying, given austerity and depressed trade.

 

The stats also seem to suggest that the spending is not investment by businesses, but spending by consumers - particularly on distribution (inc. shopping), hotels and catering: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-302051

 

Of course, that could be a good thing, if the consumer spending is sustainable. It could encourage businesses to invest and kick-start a virtuous circle of sustainable growth....but is it sustainable? Where are consumers suddenly getting the extra money from, at a time when real incomes are still falling? Some of it will be increased confidence, no doubt, but confidence doesn't pay the bills in the long-term....and maybe much of it is borrowing again (credit cards etc.)? Add in a housing bubble stimulated by the "Help to Buy" policy....then add in interest rates heading upwards again if there is a short-term recovery, and that's a volatile mix, potentially.

 

Anyone for a return to the late 80s/early 90s? Lawson boom followed by Black Wednesday crash?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_Boom  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday

 

Larry Elliott (a serious commentator, even if he is with the Grauniad) foresees a similar potential scenario: http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/oct/03/uk-economic-boom-could-be-boomlet

 

Mind you, the Tories still won the 1992 general election, despite the recession (but before Black Wednesday). If overheating does happen, the timescale could be crucial politically....will the government go into the election before or after the bubble pops?

[Guest MattP]

I'm surprised to see growth at all, I must admit, as my impression was that most consumers, businesses and public sector bodies were skint.

 

However, with growth, it's always worth asking: who is spending and what are they buying?

 

Obviously, it's not the domestic public sector or export markets that are buying, given austerity and depressed trade.

 

The stats also seem to suggest that the spending is not investment by businesses, but spending by consumers - particularly on distribution (inc. shopping), hotels and catering: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-302051

 

Of course, that could be a good thing, if the consumer spending is sustainable. It could encourage businesses to invest and kick-start a virtuous circle of sustainable growth....but is it sustainable? Where are consumers suddenly getting the extra money from, at a time when real incomes are still falling? Some of it will be increased confidence, no doubt, but confidence doesn't pay the bills in the long-term....and maybe much of it is borrowing again (credit cards etc.)? Add in a housing bubble stimulated by the "Help to Buy" policy....then add in interest rates heading upwards again if there is a short-term recovery, and that's a volatile mix, potentially.

 

Anyone for a return to the late 80s/early 90s? Lawson boom followed by Black Wednesday crash?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_Boom  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday

 

Larry Elliott (a serious commentator, even if he is with the Grauniad) foresees a similar potential scenario: http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/oct/03/uk-economic-boom-could-be-boomlet

 

Mind you, the Tories still won the 1992 general election, despite the recession (but before Black Wednesday). If overheating does happen, the timescale could be crucial politically....will the government go into the election before or after the bubble pops?

 

I think it's a bit of everything Alf, from personal experience over the summer I saw racing and cricket grounds full, pubs and nightlife has certainly picked up over the last few months with numbers, the high street has been reporting decent sales figures again. I've just been online to book my hotels for the QPR away game on Dec 21st and you are struggling for rooms already in certain places.

 

More people are in employment (even if they are zero hour contracts and part time) so a lot of people have more money in their pocket.

 

No doubt a boost from the Olympics and tourism. Don't think it's borrowing again, banks are tight as fcuk from what you hear from the man in the street.

 

He might be right but he's from the Gaurdian, he can't sit there and praise a Tory chancellor even if growth was at 5%.

[Webbo]

 

 

Anyone for a return to the late 80s/early 90s? Lawson boom followed by Black Wednesday crash?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_Boom  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday

 

 

I'm surprised you've mentioned the late 80s/early 90s boom bust and not the far more recent and more disastrous boom/bust under Gordon Brown.

 

The Black Wednesday crash and our withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism was the start of the  period of growth that Labour benefited from upto 2008.

[Alf Bentley]

I'm surprised you've mentioned the late 80s/early 90s boom bust and not the far more recent and more disastrous boom/bust under Gordon Brown.

 

The Black Wednesday crash and our withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism was the start of the  period of growth that Labour benefited from upto 2008.

 

Your second point is correct, but it's stretching it a bit to suggest that the "good times" lasted until 2008 (another 11 years!) purely because of Tory economic management in 92-97....

 

Re. your first point: I'm genuinely more interested in understanding what's happening with our economy now than having yet another party political point-scoring debate. Briefly, the economy now may (or may not) see a short-term bubble, followed by a collapse - as in 1988-92. The economy in 1992-2008 saw a gradual recovery from recession, followed by steady, if imbalanced growth (but not "an end to boom and bust", as Brown claimed!). That steady growth was shattered by a global financial crisis, caused by bankers and by excessive financial deregulation (including by New Labour, supported by the Tories). The consequences of that crash were exacerbated by the small budget deficit run by Labour (and by the Tories before them).

[DennisNedry]

Your second point is correct, but it's stretching it a bit to suggest that the "good times" lasted until 2008 (another 11 years!) purely because of Tory economic management in 92-97....

 

Re. your first point: I'm genuinely more interested in understanding what's happening with our economy now than having yet another party political point-scoring debate. Briefly, the economy now may (or may not) see a short-term bubble, followed by a collapse - as in 1988-92. The economy in 1992-2008 saw a gradual recovery from recession, followed by steady, if imbalanced growth (but not "an end to boom and bust", as Brown claimed!). That steady growth was shattered by a global financial crisis, caused by bankers and by excessive financial deregulation (including by New Labour, supported by the Tories). The consequences of that crash were exacerbated by the small budget deficit run by Labour (and by the Tories before them).

 

Edited 9 October 2013 by DennisNedry

[Webbo]

The growth under Labour was mainly fake. Our manufacturing sector shrank under Labour. It was a boom created artificially by increased public spending (including new schools and hospitals built under PFI which doesn't show in the deficit)  financed by borrowing. Inflation was kept low by importing swathes of cheap labour from abroad and cheap consumer goods from China and India.

[hackneyfox]

I know. I'm a history graduate. I've studied this.

If you really think workers are badly treated in this country, look abroad. I believe workers have too many rights. It's actually quite difficult to get rid of someone who is lazy, incompetent or both.

We work too long hours in my opinion, but that's how it is here. In terms of rights and protections, workers in the UK are amongst the best off in the world so please stop moaning.

So why do companies close factories in this country while leaving less productive ones open in places like France or Germany?

Because the workeres there have more protection.

[Guest MattP]

So why do companies close factories in this country while leaving less productive ones open in places like France or Germany?

Because the workeres there have more protection.

 

Surely if that was the case it would be the other way around?

[hackneyfox]

Surely if that was the case it would be the other way around?

No, it costs a lot more to pay off employees in France & Germany.

[hackneyfox]

The growth under Labour was mainly fake. Our manufacturing sector shrank under Labour. It was a boom created artificially by increased public spending (including new schools and hospitals built under PFI which doesn't show in the deficit)  financed by borrowing. Inflation was kept low by importing swathes of cheap labour from abroad and cheap consumer goods from China and India.

Had manufacturing in this country grown from 1979 to 1997?

[Webbo]

Had manufacturing in this country grown from 1979 to 1997?

I don't know you'll have to look that up but it definitely didn't improve under Labour.

[Alf Bentley]

The growth under Labour was mainly fake. Our manufacturing sector shrank under Labour. It was a boom created artificially by increased public spending (including new schools and hospitals built under PFI which doesn't show in the deficit)  financed by borrowing. Inflation was kept low by importing swathes of cheap labour from abroad and cheap consumer goods from China and India.

 

Partly agree and glad to discuss another time when less busy (business is booming, don't you know! But shouldn't it be in a thread other than the "Good news" thread?!? You should refer this matter to a forum moderator!  

 

 

Posted before and will post again:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture

 

As you'll see, the budget deficit under Labour pre-2008 was lower than under Major and only slightly higher than under Thatcher.

It only went through the roof as a result of the financial crash.

 

The only surpluses post-1980 were a couple of years under Thatcher in the late 80s and 4 years (1998-2001) under Blair. But let's not allow facts to get in the way of our judgment, eh?!?