• Le taux officiel de chômage au Royaume-Uni est tombé si bas qu’on risque de s’aperçevoir du mensonge à la base des statistiques.

    Le taux véritable est environ quatre fois celui affiché. Les mêmes méthodes sont employés pour falsifier les chiffres aux Etats-Unis

    Unemployment in the UK is now so low it’s in danger of exposing the lie used to create the numbers

    LONDON — Unemployment in Britain is now just 4.5%. There are only 1.49 million unemployed people in the UK, versus 32 million people with jobs.

    This is almost unheard of. Unemployment was most recently this low in December 1973, when the UK set an unrepeated record of just 3.4%.

    The problem with this record is that the statistical definition of “unemployment” relies on a fiction that economists tell themselves about the nature of work. As the rate gets lower and lower, it tests that lie. Because — as anyone who has studied basic economics knows — the official definition of unemployment disguises the true rate. In reality, about 21.5% of all working-age people (defined as ages 16 to 64) are without jobs, or 8.83 million people, according to the Office for National Statistics.

    That’s more than four times the official number.

    ...On paper, Britain is supposed to be doing well — growing economy, low unemployment. So why did Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party get so many votes in the latest election? (Answer: People still feel poor, their wages are not rising, and one in seven workers is out of work.) Why did a majority of voters choose Brexit? (Answer: The economy for men is basically still in recession, and men don’t like losing their economic power, so this was a good way of “taking back control.”) And why are so many people trapped in the “gig economy,” making minimum wage? (Answer: Because the true underlying rate of unemployment means companies can still find new workers even in a time of “full employment.”)

    #royaume_uni #UK #chômage #unemployment #jobs #ONS #statistiques #statistics #fake_news

    https://seenthis.net/messages/622210 via David Sharp