Would a government want unemployment to be kept high? Watch

ozzyoscy
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#41
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#41
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
What an absolute **** you are being. Heaven forbid I dare probe your convenient anecdote right?


Have you never noticed before that you pretend other people are doing what you're doing during one of your no doubt many internets arguments?
0
reply
Izzyeviel
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#42
Report 5 years ago
#42
Neo liberals like unemployment.

More unemployed people = more competition for jobs which drives down wages.

Same reason Neo liberals like immigration - cheap labour.
0
reply
Futility
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#43
Report 5 years ago
#43
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
I like how you keep using out of date information. Almost as if you have a confirmation bias. It's not February, it's July, and the latest data, from March to May, shows the unemployment rate at 7.8%. The unemployment rate at the last General Election was 8.1%. So once again, I was correct when I said unemployment has fallen under the coalition.
I like how you keep finding fault with my data when all you've done is to keep parroting the same unsourced cherry picked statistics. As is shown in the graph at the bottom of this article (dating from the 15th of May 2012, and once again reporting rising levels of unemployment) the rate of unemployment was falling under Labour from its peak in mid 2009 only to steadily rise again under the coalition. Moreover Youth unemployment has nearly tripled under the coalition and Long-term unemployment is the highest it's been since 1996. And then you have the audacity and hypocrisy to talk about anti-coalition rhetoric and a left wing bias in the British media. :facepalm:
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#44
Report 5 years ago
#44
(Original post by ozzyoscy)
Have you never noticed before that you pretend other people are doing what you're doing during one of your no doubt many internets arguments?
And claiming I'm doing it doesn't change the fact that you were, nor does posting a meme somehow add validity to your argument.
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#45
Report 5 years ago
#45
(Original post by Futility)
I like how you keep finding fault with my data when all you've done is to keep parroting the same unsourced cherry picked statistics. As is shown in the graph at the bottom of this article (dating from the 15th of May 2012, and once again reporting rising levels of unemployment) the rate of unemployment was falling under Labour from its peak in mid 2009 only to steadily rise again under the coalition. Moreover Youth unemployment has nearly tripled under the coalition and Long-term unemployment is the highest it's been since 1996. And then you have the audacity and hypocrisy to talk about anti-coalition rhetoric and a left wing bias in the British media. :facepalm:
Jesus wept, it's like talking to a wall with you. The actual numerical figure of unemployment is (marginally) higher, because the overall workforce is larger. The unemployment RATE, the figure I have always been alluding to, is lower. When I keep going on about how 7.8% is lower than 8.1%, that's sort of a clue that I'm talking about the unemployment rate.
0
reply
Futility
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#46
Report 5 years ago
#46
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Jesus wept, it's like talking to a wall with you. The actual numerical figure of unemployment is (marginally) higher, because the overall workforce is larger. The unemployment RATE, the figure I have always been alluding to, is lower. When I keep going on about how 7.8% is lower than 8.1%, that's sort of a clue that I'm talking about the unemployment rate.
What you actually said was:

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
overall unemployment is also down
Now if the numerical figure of unemployment is higher today than it was when the coalition came to power, it isn't exactly accurate to say that 'unemployment is down' under the coalition is it? Maybe it was just inadvertently ambiguous phrasing, but it seemed to me to be deliberately misleading. Especially when coupled with enthusiastic talk of the massive rise in private sector employment, but no mention of the massive rise in public sector, youth and long term unemployment.
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#47
Report 5 years ago
#47
(Original post by Futility)
What you actually said was:



Now if the numerical figure of unemployment is higher today than it was when the coalition came to power, it isn't exactly accurate to say that 'unemployment is down' under the coalition is it? Maybe it was just inadvertently ambiguous phrasing, but it seemed to me to be deliberately misleading. Especially when coupled with enthusiastic talk of the massive rise in private sector employment, but no mention of the massive rise in public sector, youth and long term unemployment.
Something you know full well that I clarified in the subsequent exchange numerous times, which you clearly ignored so you could continuing ranting about something I was never disputing. It is entirely accurate to say such a thing and not in any way misleading. As I have said, comparing numerical unemployment is meaningless when the workforce has grown so significantly in the last couple of years.
Infact the number of people in work has hit record levels under the coalition, despite the large public sector lay off (something I did mention). Of course it's not mission accomplished by any means, as you point out long term youth unemployment has tripled, long term unemployment is up etc., but it's not the doom and gloom that you and many others make it out to be.
0
reply
pmc:producer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#48
Report 5 years ago
#48
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Do you realise that under the coalition private sector employment has increased massively and overall employment is also down?
That's not even comparing us to our European peers, many of who are in double digit unemployment rates.
To be fair you wouldn't realise any of that though listening to the BBC or Labour with their constant negative rhetoric.
A large number to compensate public sector job losses and the rest part time jobs? Could you run a family on part time/zero hour contract jobs?
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#49
Report 5 years ago
#49
(Original post by pmc:producer)
A large number to compensate public sector job losses and the rest part time jobs? Could you run a family on part time/zero hour contract jobs?
Except it's not all part-time is it? Between Sep and Dec 2012 the number of full time jobs increased by 200,000 while part time jobs actually decreased by 43,000. Companies are increasing hours and opening new positions as the economy picks up, reversing the temporary measures many installed to ride out the recession.
0
reply
ozzyoscy
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#50
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#50
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
And claiming I'm doing it doesn't change the fact that you were, nor does posting a meme somehow add validity to your argument.
This is your problem. Not everything on the internet is an 'argument'. I was telling you of people's experiences. If you choose to deny it (despite not being omnipresent and omniscient like many keyboard warriors are) rather than accept, it is irrelevant to its existence.

If you told me you scored a hat trick in a football game today, or that your friends were assaulted, I'd be in no position to tell you you're lying, or that your friends must've antagonised the assaulters.

But this is simple human logic which we learn as we grow. If you haven't learnt it yet, perhaps you will when you're older. *shrug*
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#51
Report 5 years ago
#51
(Original post by ozzyoscy)
This is your problem. Not everything on the internet is an 'argument'. I was telling you of people's experiences. If you choose to deny it (despite not being omnipresent and omniscient like many keyboard warriors are) rather than accept, it is irrelevant to its existence.
I wasn't denying anything, I was questioning the legitimacy of such claims. In a case like this it's not beyond the realms of possibility to suggest that there may be political motivations behind such claims, when both sides appear to be out to smear the other. For instance the apparent jobseeker who challenged IDS to live on the dole, who turned out to be far wealthier than he let on. Or the woman who commited suicide and blames it on the bedroom 'tax' because she didn't want to move six miles away. So please forgive me if I didn't take what you said at face value straight away, and suggested that perhaps there might have been more to some guy losing his job than it all being the fault of the government and the work programme.

If you told me you scored a hat trick in a football game today, or that your friends were assaulted, I'd be in no position to tell you you're lying, or that your friends must've antagonised the assaulters.
If I'd used either of those as a convenient rebuttal in a debate and you'd asked for more evidence I certainly wouldn't blow my top and say that your opinion is worthless and irrelevant and you should do one.

But this is simple human logic which we learn as we grow. If you haven't learnt it yet, perhaps you will when you're older. *shrug*
:rolleyes:
0
reply
ozzyoscy
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#52
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#52
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
I wasn't denying anything, I was questioning the legitimacy of such claims. In a case like this it's not beyond the realms of possibility to suggest that there may be political motivations behind such claims, when both sides appear to be out to smear the other. For instance the apparent jobseeker who challenged IDS to live on the dole, who turned out to be far wealthier than he let on. Or the woman who commited suicide and blames it on the bedroom 'tax' because she didn't want to move six miles away. So please forgive me if I didn't take what you said at face value straight away, and suggested that perhaps there might have been more to some guy losing his job than it all being the fault of the government and the work programme.



If I'd used either of those as a convenient rebuttal in a debate and you'd asked for more evidence I certainly wouldn't blow my top and say that your opinion is worthless and irrelevant and you should do one.



:rolleyes:
Yeah not reading that, keyboard warrior.

Multi-quoting, an essay and a roll eyes smiley all in one post. It's like you want to be a stereotype.
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#53
Report 5 years ago
#53
(Original post by ozzyoscy)
Yeah not reading that, keyboard warrior.

Multi-quoting, an essay and a roll eyes smiley all in one post. It's like you want to be a stereotype.
Says more about you then anything else if you think that's an 'essay'.

I love how you tried to act all morally superior before, yet now you've resorted to silly ad hominem attacks. Yawn. I'll be waiting if you want to actually get back to debating the topic at hand.
0
reply
ozzyoscy
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#54
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#54
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Says more about you then anything else if you think that's an 'essay'.

I love how you tried to act all morally superior before, yet now you've resorted to silly ad hominem attacks. Yawn. I'll be waiting if you want to actually get back to debating the topic at hand.
An interesting point, but what about the rest?
0
reply
TrulyEpicLawls
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#55
Report 5 years ago
#55
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
How convenient. And of course it was definitely that reason, not simply a coincidence or correlation? Obviously a disgruntled lower level employee knows all the inner workings of a business? Isn't exaggerating at all to make a political point?
(Original post by ozzyoscy)
A coincidence or correlation? A lower level employee not knowing 'all the inner workings of a business'*? Disgruntled? Exaggerating to make a political point?

How convenient.

*this is gibberish

What you choose to believe is completely irrelevant
Bang on the money. Pol Pot's interpretation was just as convenient, probably more so, then the original description of the situation. In the end it doesn't change what has happen in real life, no matter how many insults and paragraphs someone hurls in desperation to never be wrong.
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#56
Report 5 years ago
#56
(Original post by TrulyEpicLawls)
Bang on the money. Pol Pot's interpretation was just as convenient, probably more so, then the original description of the situation. In the end it doesn't change what has happen in real life, no matter how many insults and paragraphs someone hurls in desperation to never be wrong.
Official figures state that private sector employment is up, yet I'm supposed to believe, purely on anecdotes and hearsay, that loads of people are actually getting sacked and replaced with free work programme jobseekers, despite no indication of such happening in the media? Yeah okay, sure :rolleyes:
0
reply
TrulyEpicLawls
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report 5 years ago
#57
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Official figures state that private sector employment is up, yet I'm supposed to believe, purely on anecdotes and hearsay, that loads of people are actually getting sacked and replaced with free work programme jobseekers, despite no indication of such happening in the media? Yeah okay, sure :rolleyes:
"The numbers are better, so it means it never happens". I bet you win all your internet debates.

Just because someone's personal experience doesn't suit your world view doesn't mean they're lying, for your benefit even. You are not so important that people would do that. As has been said, whether you choose to believe it or not doesn't change the facts.

This is the bit where you quote me several times, write paragraphs on it, then pretend everyone's being mean to you and rude. Issues.
1
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#58
Report 5 years ago
#58
(Original post by TrulyEpicLawls)
Just because someone's personal experience doesn't suit your world view doesn't mean they're lying, for your benefit even. You are not so important that people would do that. As has been said, whether you choose to believe it or not doesn't change the facts.
I never said anyone was lying. I asked for an elaboration of what happened. I dared to query if someone losing their job was infact down to their employer simply replacing them with free labour from a work programme, if maybe somebody is jumping to the wrong conclusion, if perhaps it was a coincidence or something else was at play. Jesus wept, you're acting as if I **** on a Union Flag. You probably shouldn't engage in debates if you're going to throw a tantrum any time someone disagrees with you.
Oh and by the way, I was the only one reeling off any facts. Dubiously convenient anecdotal hearsay from some guy on the internet about the apparent experiences of some other guy on the internet is not now nor will it ever be factual evidence.

This is the bit where you quote me several times, write paragraphs on it, then pretend everyone's being mean to you and rude. Issues.
I love how you try to imply that I'm a **** yet you come out with stuff like this.
1
reply
ozzyoscy
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#59
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#59
(Original post by TrulyEpicLawls)
This is the bit where you quote me several times, write paragraphs on it, then pretend everyone's being mean to you and rude. Issues.
Called it.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
You probably shouldn't engage in debates if you're going to throw a tantrum any time someone disagrees with you.
O RLY?
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#60
Report 5 years ago
#60
(Original post by ozzyoscy)
Called it.



O RLY?
So have you completely given up on adding anything actually meaningful to this debate?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

The new Gillette ad. Is it:

Man-hating bullsh*t (22)
42.31%
Pro-humanity (30)
57.69%

Watched Threads

View All