How can people be unemployed?

Yes. Even in an ideal World where everyone is qualified and has the skills for every job and everybody wants to work, there would still have to be unemployed people as the fact of the matter is, there are not enough jobs for everyone.

What does annoy me is when students say they have no work experience, but are not willing to volunteer for free to get experience and a reference. Even if it's only every Sunday afternoon, you're still showing you can work and can stick to something. I volunteered a lot more than that because I enjoyed the work, and had a good reference because I showed I was committed. Even when I was in paid work with McDonald's, I still went back to the shop and volunteered because I enjoyed it so much and I felt good for carrying on working.

I'd say there is a shortage of high-skilled jobs, but in my opinion there needs to be a shortage to encourage efficiency. Secondly, for people pulling out statistics demonstrating that there "are 3.6 unemployed person for every job vacancy that exists", that really doesn't say much unless you can prove that 3.6 unemployed people apply for every 1 job vacancy.

Obviously I can't testify to every vacancy but whenever I've been at job interviews before I found out I'd got onto a post grad course, there were upwards of 10 people at the interview all after the one position.Were they job interviews for high-skilled jobs? if yes read my previous comment.

Also, even if unemployed people are not all applying to those jobs, it doesn't change the fact that there is not a job out there for every single person. As I said in my above comment: Even if everybody were willing and qualified for every job, it does not change the fact that there are more people than jobs, so some will inevitably end up unemployed, regardless of how hard they try.

My point is that there are more unemployed people than job vacancies. Even if every single one of those people applied for those jobs, there still would be a surplus of people for those roles and thus a number of them would be left unemployed, regardless of if they had applied to the job.

With regards to my interviews, I interviewed for many positions, some graduate vacancies and some service positions that required no qualifications because I just wanted anything. There were more people interviewing for the service positions. This leads back to my point: If a company has one role and 10 people interview for it, 9 of them are still left unemployed after the company has made its decision.

And so...What is the significance of this. Why is it necessarily a negative thing. The first paragraph is hypothetical and pointless because in reality every one does not apply for every job available, and I want to regard this issue as realistically as possible. Secondly, why is it bad that 9 people would be left unemployed? Doesn't this encourage efficiency? Those with the greatest skills, the most competent get the jobs, isn't this fair? Rewarding for those who truly are the best? At 16 I wanted a job in summer I applied for two weeks found a job in the service sector, no prior job experience, rubbish CV, and I got the job because I researched a bunch of stuff about the company which I spoke about in the interview. The free market rewards those who are the most prepared, and the most competent, generally.

Just out of sheer boredom, I've been home from University for 1 day and I'm eager to start work. I just don't get how millions of people can sit on their arse all doing nothing to contribute towards society. Then have the nerve to moan they don't get the same opportunities as other.

It does promote efficiency and having more competition is not something I have a problem with. It is right that the most competent will get the job.
The point I was trying to make is that it is wrong to demonize people simply because they are unemployed. It is not always somebody's fault that they can't get a job, it is just because there are better candidates than them. I was just trying to point out that a lot of people are unemployed, not because they are lazy and don't want to work, but because there aren't enough jobs to go around.

Fair enough, but wouldn't you agree that if someone strove to enhance their skills to become more competent they would be more likely to find employment, so unemployment is due to a lack of effort to some extent?

No because there always will be more candidates than there are jobs.

I did say "to some extent". So if everyone put as much effort as they could in becoming more competent workers, or more employable in general, there would be less unemploymemt, as they would be more, likely to find a job. BTW how can you assert that there will always be more candidates than jobs?

If everyone put as much effort as they could, some candidates will still be picked and others wont.
How can I assert that? Because thats how it is. Or are you going to argue that 2.5 million people are just lazy?

lol. You said "always" so "that's how it is doesn't answer the question".2.5 million unemployed using what measure?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27046681

theres always going to be more people than there are jobs, i dont know how you can even argue the fact. next youll be saying that 2+2=5. unless we were to have another world war...

One, when you make an assertion you provide the evidence/basis for your argument you don't redirect me to it. Secondly 2.2 not 2.5 million unemployed based on ONS which measures those actively looking for employment, so yes there could be some unemployment due to indolence to some extent. Thirdly, this article doesn't prove why there will "always" be more applicants than vacancies.

Thirdly, this article doesn't prove why there will "always" be more applicants than vacancies.