hidingeyes

1.3K posts

hidingeyes banner
hidingeyes

hidingeyes

@simonmanytrees

Was cry=1 tender=5 conmon=1 shifty=-9 Now wnleft11=7 redyl13=7 futur4=2 Labour market stats, mostly

Kent Beigetreten Şubat 2013
207 Folgt20 Follower
Angehefteter Tweet
hidingeyes
hidingeyes@simonmanytrees·
Spending on working-age benefits remains a low & easily sustainable share of GDP. Some parts of this are cyclical - it hit 4.5% of GDP after the financial crisis & again in the pandemic vs 4% now. New data in spring statement show share still flat between now & end of the decade
hidingeyes tweet media
English
1
0
0
20
hidingeyes
hidingeyes@simonmanytrees·
Breaking down the population in 2025 shows that lower female Muslim employment mostly reflected in more inactive students (due to younger age profile of population) & more inactive with caring responsibilities (many of whom are in family units with a working partner)
hidingeyes tweet media
English
0
0
0
2
hidingeyes
hidingeyes@simonmanytrees·
This overall picture hides gender divide: - for men aged 16-64, excluding those in FTE, Muslim vs national average is 79% vs 82% - for women aged 16-64, excluding those in FTE, it's 54% vs 76%
hidingeyes tweet mediahidingeyes tweet media
English
1
0
0
2
hidingeyes
hidingeyes@simonmanytrees·
Taking account of private social spending & support clawed back by the tax system, UK total net social spending as a share of GDP is the second lowest in the G7
hidingeyes tweet media
English
0
0
0
7
hidingeyes
hidingeyes@simonmanytrees·
UK spending on benefits for working age people & pensioners as a share of GDP has not increased over time & within the G7 only the USA spends significantly less
hidingeyes tweet media
English
1
1
0
11
hidingeyes
hidingeyes@simonmanytrees·
Spending on working-age benefits remains a low & easily sustainable share of GDP. Some parts of this are cyclical - it hit 4.5% of GDP after the financial crisis & again in the pandemic vs 4% now. New data in spring statement show share still flat between now & end of the decade
hidingeyes tweet media
English
1
0
0
20
hidingeyes
hidingeyes@simonmanytrees·
@griffitha Some context with actual labels - a concerning trend but it's been rising since 2022 & well below the 2012 peak. The unemployment rate is a share of the labour force not the population & covers all those seeking & available for work even if in education &/or not claiming benefits
hidingeyes tweet media
English
0
0
0
25
Andrew Griffith MP
Andrew Griffith MP@griffitha·
Rising youth unemployment - now to 14.5% amongst 18 to 24 year olds - is a tragedy. Firms are not hiring as costs rise and confidence falls. Sadly, it could get much worse from the start of April with new red tape employment rules and above-inflation hikes in minimum wages.
Andrew Griffith MP tweet media
English
21
79
208
9.5K
hidingeyes
hidingeyes@simonmanytrees·
@NeilDotObrien Starting in 2024 cleverly hides that it was rising for the last 3 yrs of the previous govt! Of all under-25s who've left full-time education 75.7% were in work in mid 2021, but it fell to 69.4% by mid 2024. Latest is 69.3% so the damage was done *before* the election
English
0
0
1
108
Neil O'Brien
Neil O'Brien@NeilDotObrien·
Government is making an announcement on youth unemployment this morning - good that they have woken up the problem they have created: A quick thread: (1/9)
Neil O'Brien tweet media
English
25
99
406
40K
Simon French
Simon French@Frencheconomics·
There were 217,000 people who meet the eligibility criteria for the Youth Jobs Grant, set to be announced later today. For someone 18-24 moving onto the NLW & doing 36h/week then that saves the employer £2,836 - so more than a full offset by the YJG. Builds on the Chancellor's view at TSC last week that the labour demand hit from recent NICs changes is a "valid argument". Looks like policy is chasing its tail here.
Simon French tweet media
English
4
7
33
6.4K
hidingeyes
hidingeyes@simonmanytrees·
Looking at 25-29 year olds - by which time the % still in education is much lower & what matters is how well the labour market works - the UK employment rate (84%) is above the USA, Canada, France & Italy and below only Germany in the G7 (no data for Japan)
hidingeyes tweet media
English
0
0
0
18
hidingeyes
hidingeyes@simonmanytrees·
NEET can be unemployed or inactive - the white-bordered bars below. Countries are sorted by % in education, low to high. Most countries with low NEET vis the UK do it by having (often much) higher % still in education. Ironic as many think rise in UK % in education gone too far
hidingeyes tweet media
English
1
1
0
292
hidingeyes
hidingeyes@simonmanytrees·
UK has always had high NEET rate internationally but chart misleading as not all are on the same basis. NEET also not that useful - people see it as about state of the job market but it's driven by UK having one of lowest shares in education - ironic as many think it's too high!
Alice Evans@_alice_evans

Britain’s politicians have pushed through a number of well-intentioned policies that have been ultimately disastrous. Another great column by @jburnmurdoch

English
2
1
0
681
The Purple Pimpernel
The Purple Pimpernel@Eyeswideopen69·
@ConorBurnsUK Anyone who puts Starmer behind Johnson as PM, shouldn’t be allowed to operate scissors unsupervised.
English
7
49
627
3.3K
Sir Conor Burns
Sir Conor Burns@ConorBurnsUK·
I have very little time for the UK Prime Minister. With the exception of Truss (who created a shit show list of 1) he may be the worst PM of modern times. But criticism for coming late to wars did raise an eyebrow given even a slight acquaintance with history.
English
34
5
88
21.4K
hidingeyes
hidingeyes@simonmanytrees·
@sworrall @ArmstrongT97969 @FennellJW Inactivity is back close to 2019 low & includes many who aren't disadvantaged &/or we don't necessarily want to be working right now - e.g students & those with caring responsibilities. Many aren't on benefits 'cos they aren't eligible, don't know about or choose not to claim
English
0
0
1
11
hidingeyes
hidingeyes@simonmanytrees·
@sworrall @ArmstrongT97969 @FennellJW Your objection should be because it doesn't work - evidence is that workfare (esp at scale) much more expensive than alternative policies, displaces other jobs & diverts people who would have found a job anyway into activity that delays return to work & can damage employability
English
0
0
0
6
Simon Worrall 💉💉 💉💉💉💉
Simon Worrall 💉💉 💉💉💉💉@sworrall·
@ArmstrongT97969 @FennellJW I have no principled objection to 'workfare'. But here the local authority pits out notices encouraging us not to litter the highways because litter-picking is so dangerous for those undertaking it. (And they actually want paying!)
English
2
0
0
32
hidingeyes
hidingeyes@simonmanytrees·
@FennellJW @sworrall @ArmstrongT97969 Inactivity has *fallen* quite sharply & now close to all-time 2019 low i.e the post-pandemic rise that had media saying no-one works anymore has largely gone. 16+ employment rate actually *up* slightly in last year but employment not rising fast enough to absorb so unemp also up
English
1
0
1
15
JamesFennell MBE
JamesFennell MBE@FennellJW·
@sworrall @ArmstrongT97969 Although as unemployment has risen, economic inactivity has not changes, which suggests more of these people are trying to find work, even if they are not getting it yet.
English
1
0
0
25
Swan Hefner
Swan Hefner@SwanHefner·
@simonmanytrees @linmeitalks So how does it cost more to not pay them and remove them than to pay them and remove them? If they are deported in large numbers, thus reducing overall costs of transport etc. The process shouldn't be taking time and money is the issue. They should be deported immediately.
English
2
0
1
89
Lin Mei
Lin Mei@linmeitalks·
Sorry why can’t you just send them back with no money other than their airline ticket and possibly £200 max for food for two days when they arrive back in their home country. Failed means they were not in danger in their home country, so just go back empty handed??? What’s the issue ? Why are they holding us to ransom financially? It should not be £158k in a hotel or £40k IT SHOULD BE NOTHING!
Shabana Mahmood MP@ShabanaMahmood

Our pilot of new incentives to remove failed asylum seeking families will save taxpayers up to £20 million. Here's why 👇 1. It costs 158k to put up a family of 3 in an asylum hotel for 1 year. It costs 48k more to forcibly remove someone. A 10k per person incentive, up to a max of 40k per family, will save money. 2. If someone refuses an incentive, we will move to a forced removal. If you have no right to be in this country, you should not be allowed to stay. 3. There is nothing new about incentive payments. The Tories did it. Even Reform say they will do it. 4. Higher incentives have worked in Denmark. 95% of returns there are voluntary. 5. These incentives are not a pull factor. Asylum claims in Denmark are at a 40-year low. And asylum seekers spend tens of thousands of pounds getting to this country, that's more than any incentive payment. 6. This is a pilot of 150 families. We will see if it works and scale it if it does. That's taking a smart approach, that saves taxpayers' money, to restoring order at our borders. I make no apology for doing that.

English
52
167
2.2K
178.7K
hidingeyes
hidingeyes@simonmanytrees·
@SwanHefner @linmeitalks Because that process takes time & costs money, potentially a lot more than an earlier, £-induced voluntary exit. Denmark thinks this has saved them money overall, we are doing a small pilot to test that theory here. This is not a difficult feat of comprehension!
English
1
0
0
88
Swan Hefner
Swan Hefner@SwanHefner·
@linmeitalks Also look at point 2, it says they can forcibly remove them, so why does money even need to be involved, or any other steps besides point 2?
English
1
0
11
3.5K
hidingeyes
hidingeyes@simonmanytrees·
@ShabanaMahmood Whatever you think of the policy - & remember it's a small pilot to test if it works - this is just an excellent piece of clear, succinct & persuasive comms. Enough with the platitudinous dross - every single part of government should be doing this, all the time!
English
0
0
0
8
Shabana Mahmood MP
Shabana Mahmood MP@ShabanaMahmood·
Our pilot of new incentives to remove failed asylum seeking families will save taxpayers up to £20 million. Here's why 👇 1. It costs 158k to put up a family of 3 in an asylum hotel for 1 year. It costs 48k more to forcibly remove someone. A 10k per person incentive, up to a max of 40k per family, will save money. 2. If someone refuses an incentive, we will move to a forced removal. If you have no right to be in this country, you should not be allowed to stay. 3. There is nothing new about incentive payments. The Tories did it. Even Reform say they will do it. 4. Higher incentives have worked in Denmark. 95% of returns there are voluntary. 5. These incentives are not a pull factor. Asylum claims in Denmark are at a 40-year low. And asylum seekers spend tens of thousands of pounds getting to this country, that's more than any incentive payment. 6. This is a pilot of 150 families. We will see if it works and scale it if it does. That's taking a smart approach, that saves taxpayers' money, to restoring order at our borders. I make no apology for doing that.
English
5.1K
140
773
1.5M

Entdecken

@Bbmorg @griffitha @NeilDotObrien @Frencheconomics @Eyeswideopen69 @ConorBurnsUK @sworrall @ArmstrongT97969