Is it Can Cameron bring us full employment? And do we want to?

'Two million jobs have been created since 2010 - but there will be no time to rest until we reach our goal,' David Cameron wrote in a Telegraph paper two weeks before the election: 'Two million more jobs; or full employment in the UK. 'It was a bold statement. As you can imagine, considering the 1.84 million unemployment in the winter quarter, that the aim of the new job was a mistake for who ever prepared the Prime Minister's draft. Either way, it touched a bit more of the time and smoke of the war. But now the air is open to scrutiny, because it covers all important topics (except one in Scotland - it is fraught with the danger that, like the Scottish game, it is totally unnecessary) of the coming phase of national politics: desire, equality, spending, migration and EU membership.

Is it Is it full employment, and is it a realistic goal? When George Osborne announced that in April 2014, I called him a "cheek" - even though his speech was followed by a sharp decline in the unemployment rate. Full employment does not mean 'everyone at work'; more like 'everyone in a full or part-time job who wants to have and not rest between jobs'. Back in July 1955, it meant an unemployment rate of just 1 percent, or 216,000 workers.

In today's highly flexible market, it is estimated to occur somewhere between 3 to 5 percent of unemployment (we currently have 5.6 percent) and is easily confused with the 'unemployment rate' that labor shortages are beginning to generate. price. litigation. The Bank of England puts that at 5.1 percent, which was the average rate of unemployment from 2001 to 2007 - although economist Michael Saunders of Citi says, 'The job market has changed a lot over the past decade. being less now than it was then.
Enough theology - let's assume the unemployment rate goes below 5 percent and goes into or beyond the realm of equality. What does it mean? There were actually two million jobs created since 2010 - and according to the Office for National Statistics, half of them were taken by immigrants. Let's say we can create two million more. Even after getting the Public Sector job cut off by the next Osborne trunk, the success of such an industry will increase the number of people working at the peak of the current record of 31 million: which will give immigrants the same time. level five years ago, and where will they live? Is it Cameron's letter was based on the idea that immigrants were coming, so how best to work for ourselves?
As with inflationary pressures in the face of unemployment, immigration is the obvious bottom line. But rising wage rates are also an important form of inequality - which remains the dream of Cameron and Osborne, or at least the joke that makes them wince. Many Tory candidates told voters at the door that they would be happy to see a significant increase in legal wages. Is it Wouldn't it be better if the market pushed for more pay? Yes it would, as long as energy and import prices can hold inflation and - most importantly - productivity also improves. It has fallen into place since 2007 (also ONS statistics) and that in turn raises emergencies and efficiency, technology and management.

Then again, the growing Private Sector workers are paying more taxpayers, and higher salary levels at the end of the year means lower demand for job benefits - so full employment means Osborne can balance his books, with reduced well-being. . . Is it What can set us apart? Events, dear boy, and Europe - whether it's for his inevitable fate, or the one we're making.