As the TUC note, Chris Grayling told the Conservative party conference yesterday that there is ‘no reason for people in London to claim that they can not find employment’.
In fact, there are 214,293 people claiming JSA in London at the moment, while only 37,513 vacancies are being advertised across the London Jobcentre Plus network. The ratio of notified jobs to JSA claimants is 1:6.
The reason that there are unemployed people in London is that there is not enough work for them to do.
But that doesn’t fir with neoliberal theory which says unemployment is choice. So, they ignore the reality and carry on with the fiction.
That’s madness. And that’s the foundation of ConDem thinking.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Do you really think that every employer advertises their jobs at the Job Centre?
@Andrew Symonds
Of course not
But there’s still a massive shortage of jobs
“But there’s still a massive shortage of jobs”
In London.
@PJH
London has the most buoyant economy in the UK
You’re saying what in that case?
“London has the most buoyant economy in the UK”
What has being buoyant got to do with being able to supply enough jobs for the local population? Bugger all, as you demonstrate yourself by pointing out the fact that there aren’t enough jobs for the local population.
“You’re saying what in that case?”
There is an national unemployment rate of ~7.5% (Jul ’10) and yet there are too many people for the number of jobs in the capital.
Perhaps, and I know this will come as a completely unacceptable suggestion to some, the unemployed in London should start looking for jobs further afield. And rather than the unemployed getting their rent paid by the employed (through their tax packets,) they could perhaps be able to afford to pay their own rent out, of their own wages, on the somewhat cheaper accommodation to be found outside the capital.
Hmm – got myself a little mixed up there:
There is an national unemployment rate of ~7.5%
I did of course mean to point out the vacancies available further down the page.
@PJH
I come to the conclusion you’re stupid
You may hav noticed the unemployment rate is even higher outside London
So, there’s jobs outside the capital, people in the capital refuse to move to get them, and I’m the one that’s stupid?
@PJH
Yes, you are the stupid one
A higher unemployment rate means there are even fewer jobs to be found outside London and more people chasing them
So moving out would be wholly irrational
If you need such an explanation to be spoon-fed I think my conclusion follows
Moving out would be wholly irrational if there were no jobs.
But there are jobs. So it wouldn’t be wholly irrational.
I do wish you’d stop with the ad-hominem attacks Richard, and address the points being raised instead.
Jobs outside of London == jobs for those in London if they can’t get a job in London (because all the vacancies are apparently already filled – you did mean to imply that all the job centers in London can shut, because they have nothing on their boards didn’t you?)
Why are you arguing as if there aren’t any jobs when there are.
And I’d like a citation for your clear assumption that every single unemployed person is chasing the limited number of jobs. There are numerous cases of people treating unemployment as a career choice.
Indulge me Richard, spoon feed me your wisdom. Why would it be folly to chase jobs in an area where jobs are clearly going unfilled, where the rent is cheaper, and would result in less pressure on the benefits system?
@PJH
I’ll happily say a fool is a fool if the evidence backs my case…
And so let’s be clear: there are approximately nationwide six applicants for each job
Moving has a massive financial and social cost
Most people have little or no financial capital
Benefits do not cover living cost and provide no capital for job hunting
And most people have all their social capital where they already live
The cost of moving cannot therefore be justified when there is no certainty of getting a job by doing so
“And so let’s be clear: there are approximately nationwide six applicants for each job”
But you’re not being clear Richard.
Citation please. When? Over what period? What area? – GB/UK/England? Is this
– 6 “economically active” people who could apply for each job out there, despite not all of them actively looking (nor some needing) work?
– 6 actual applicants averaged over a select few positions in a select few areas?
– total UK average of all actual applicants against all open job vacancies?
A google search for [six applicants for each job] threw up:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=512020 – posted a year ago. Light on the details of who’s actually included in their ‘6.1’ figure.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=313391469880 – which is talking about the US, not the UK, England or GB.
A more restrictive Google search for [six “applicants for each job” (UK | GB | England)] fails to give any relevant matches near the top.
You see Richard, despite your trite pronouncements, you fail to back them up with any detail or relevant citations, leaving your audience that would like to comment on your views at a disadvantage since you’re `clearly` talking about one thing, implying another, and calling those who can’t mind-read, or simply disagree with you, “stupid.”
“Moving has a massive financial and social cost”
So does staying unemployed at the tax-payers’ expense in expensive London. You remember Tax? You appear to want us who pay it to pay more – what about those who should start paying it to begin with?
“Most people have little or no financial capital”
Irrelevant. If they’re getting their rent paid by the taxpayer in London while jobless, I’m sure there’ll be nothing stopping them from applying for getting their substantially discounted rent paid outside of London.
“Benefits do not cover living cost and provide no capital for job hunting”
Benefits do provide living costs. Indeed, some on benefits still manage to go abroad for their holidays. And what “capital for job hunting”? How much money do stamps and phone calls cost these days? Internet?
“And most people have all their social capital where they already live”
So then, because people have their friends in one area, they should be exempted from moving to get a (better) job? Idiocy.
“The cost of moving cannot therefore be justified when there is no certainty of getting a job by doing so”
So they should not bother trying to look for a job, getting one, then moving?
@PJH
Well I’m terribly sorry that in writing a response to an anonymous blog commentator I did not reach peer review standard
Silly me – I did not realise I had to
Perhaps you’d like me to take the whole blog down?
Except I wont as I think you’ll find the ratio near as damn it right
And the rest of your comments show you to be the typical neoliberal (or worse) – utterly unaware of the reality of life and devoid of any compassion
You’re joining the list of those who simply waste my time and will not get on in future – because I have no desire at all to engage with your likes
Unfortunately there are lots of little PJH’s about who regularly have their prejudices reinforced by the junk media. They have obviously never had the slightest human contact with a benefit claimant and think getting out of the rut of unemployment and the low self esteem which it engenders is easy peasy. It really is beyond their imagination that someone with debt rather than savings can baulk at the cost of taking themselves off to another part of the country to look for low paid casual work – all they’re likely to find.
@Carol Wilcox
Exactly right
They’ve had empathy bypasses
Carol, having been the exact position you describe myself 3 years ago (unemployed, on benefits, in debt, moving 250 miles to get another job, no longer in the position of the first three in that list) I can say that getting out of the `rut isn’t as difficult as you appear to imagine.
@PJH
So easy to say from behind a veil of anonymity
I am confused
On the one hand we decry the lack of jobs and on the other we complain about the immigration cap.
@PJH
Please now tell me that you uprooted your dependents to move away from friends and family and accepted employment on minimum wage.
As PJH lists ‘Programmer’ as an occupation on a Google profile I hardly imagine he or she moved for minimum wage.