Economics, what's that?

[Snorri1234]

The 'benefit' for 'lazy fucks' is, indeed, jobseekers' allowance. Apparently, you've had to live on it for a few months many years ago. Wasit is soooo horrible? Diddums...I suppose you had to give up your evening spliff, and could only sleep with thai-ladyboys once a week. Enough to keep body and soul together, but certainly not enough to fund the old Guardian-addiction or to get best-brand tofu...cry me a fucking river. On a serious note, do you have hard statistics and empirical evidence to back your views, or just unverifiable, subjective personal anecdote?

So your response to hc's claim (based on his experience) that living on jobseeker's allowance is fucked up is saying that it isn't, stopping for a few secs to add a few personal attacks to spice it up a little, and he's lying?

I don't get it. How can you claim his story is a lie when you have not the slightest experience in ever having to live on little money? You're 15 years old Naps, how can you judge things like that? Have you ever had to live on 50 or 60 quid a week? That's no fun, especially as it guarantees you'll have no luxury to speak off. It's food and drink and basic neccesities, nothing more. I don't think anyone wants to live on it for any extended period of time.

Also, how can anyone bring up hard statistics and empirical evidence for that? Sheets of numbers and tests? Of what is actually a subjective view (i.e. the experience that it's not fun)?

[Napoleon Ier]

The 'benefit' for 'lazy fucks' is, indeed, jobseekers' allowance. Apparently, you've had to live on it for a few months many years ago. Wasit is soooo horrible? Diddums...I suppose you had to give up your evening spliff, and could only sleep with thai-ladyboys once a week. Enough to keep body and soul together, but certainly not enough to fund the old Guardian-addiction or to get best-brand tofu...cry me a fucking river. On a serious note, do you have hard statistics and empirical evidence to back your views, or just unverifiable, subjective personal anecdote?

So your response to hc's claim (based on his experience) that living on jobseeker's allowance is fucked up is saying that it isn't, stopping for a few secs to add a few personal attacks to spice it up a little, and he's lying?

I don't get it. How can you claim his story is a lie when you have not the slightest experience in ever having to live on little money? You're 15 years old Naps, how can you judge things like that? Have you ever had to live on 50 or 60 quid a week? That's no fun, especially as it guarantees you'll have no luxury to speak off. It's food and drink and basic neccesities, nothing more. I don't think anyone wants to live on it for any extended period of time.

Also, how can anyone bring up hard statistics and empirical evidence for that? Sheets of numbers and tests? Of what is actually a subjective view (i.e. the experience that it's not fun)?

No, I can question him and his story, regardless of my age, using statistical evidence. "I am/was on welfare therefore I am justified in pontificating on the subject in whichever way I please" is not a valid line of reasoning. It's an ad hominem fallacy, in a slightly disguised form.
However, "I can and have found data on the matter and analysed it to make valid conclusions" is a sensible line of argument.

So let's do that, eh? Use hard statistics: the leftist's most feared foe...

First however, some a priori: if welfare benefits are raised, it follows that work (usually amongst lower paid people) becomes less attractive. There will be a lag, since most people don't quit jobs at once to go on welfare, but unemployment will rise accordingly as people find that the old equation dictating that consumption "c" = output "y" = function /---> number of hours worked "f(n)" no longer holds true, since you can still get a value for c, : y = 0. Does the empirical data support this?

Well, here are the stats for welfare benefits per week in the UK in 1938 inflation adjusted money and the unemployment level: Post-War, Beveridge actually lowered the benefit, when you adjust for inflation, and insisted that after 6 months, acceptance of state-provided work or training would be "required". Unemployment in 1946 was low at 3%, and by 1951 was 1.6%. Interestingly, inflation also caused a 23.5% drop in real benefits.

Then, in '55, welafre was raised 23.1%, whilst inflation had only risen 6.5% since '51. Similarily, 1958, it was raised by 25%, and again between 1961 and 1963. The Conservatives, surprinsingly, not Attlee and Beveridge as is so often popularily assumed, raised welfare first. Not to be outdone, Labour under Wilson raised unemplyment by a further 18.5% in 1965.
In the decade beginning in April 1955, Welfare rose by 72% above inflation. Since 1967, unemployment has never returned below 2% again, and reached a peak of 4% in 1970.

In 1974, Wilson won the election again. He raised the benefit further, boosting it far above inflation. Benefits stayed high throughout the 70s in real terms. Unemployment had risen to 6% within two years of the '74 hike,and by 1981, stood at a distastros 11.4% (the lag was over and the economy felt the full effect of this disincentivization). Since 1985, however, unemplyment benfits have stayed constant at roughly £54 in 2001 money, declining slowly with inflation (£54.95 in 1985, £53.01 in 2001). But, as wages rose in disproportion to this constant rate, unemployment fell to the reasonbly low levels we know today. As a percentage of avergae real wages, the benefit fell from 32.3% to 19.8%. To compound this, income tax fell, further widening the gap between unemployment benefit and real wages. Accordingly, unemployment has falled by about 60% since the 80s, to a constant rate of roughly 4% since the new millenium.

The theory that unemployment benefits deincentivize work and raise unemployment is comprehensible in theory and backed by the data, here collated by James Bartholomew and Charles Clarke,in Social Insurance in Britain from 1938 and The Welfare State We're In.


Whether or not living on welfare is "fun" is certainly subjective, but emprirically, it makes no economic sense to pay heed to claims it's so horrible, since it obviously is more appealing to many than putting in a day's work.

[got tonkaed]

Without knowing the labor history too well in the UK and taking at face value what the source you used presents, i still question whether or not your putting a bit too much faith in the argument that people are opting out of work because of an increase in benefits at such an extreme degree. Certainly there are some issues with simply using the unemployment statistic, unless they have done some work to account for some of the issues with the statistic (which they very well may have).

[Neoteny]

Yah, yah...whatever you say.

I reccomend this for a start. It's written in layman's terms, and is excellent as an introductory course:




Easily available at a good price off Amazon. I got mine for a mere £2.87 second-hand from someone in Georgia. Neoteny's Reagan-loving dad, perhaps?

Nah, we're still convinced Euros aren't real money, so that probably wasn't us.

[got tonkaed]

lol well if we arent sure its real money we should start considering it, cause id rather be paid in Euros than in dollars.

[Neoteny]

lol well if we arent sure its real money we should start considering it, cause id rather be paid in Euros than in dollars.

Too true.

[Snorri1234]

No, I can question him and his story, regardless of my age, using statistical evidence. "I am/was on welfare therefore I am justified in pontificating on the subject in whichever way I please" is not a valid line of reasoning. It's an ad hominem fallacy, in a slightly disguised form.
However, "I can and have found data on the matter and analysed it to make valid conclusions" is a sensible line of argument.

Except that he wasn't doing that. He was saying that welfare is not fun and living on it means you won't have much of a social life. He was saying, that in his experience, the money is low enough already for people to seek a job regardless.

Well, here are the stats for welfare benefits per week in the UK in 1938 inflation adjusted money and the unemployment level: Post-War, Beveridge actually lowered the benefit, when you adjust for inflation, and insisted that after 6 months, acceptance of state-provided work or training would be "required". Unemployment in 1946 was low at 3%, and by 1951 was 1.6%. Interestingly, inflation also caused a 23.5% drop in real benefits.

This is something which probably already explains the low unemployment. I'm actually all in favor of introducing such a policy now, it sounds very usefull.

Regardless, some of this could also be explained by the fact that this was after the War in which many men had died so it makes sense most people had jobs. I imagine there was no shortage of relatively well-paid jobs.

Basically, the social factors here and the way it functioned make it almost silly to compare it to other times.

Then, in '55, welafre was raised 23.1%, whilst inflation had only risen 6.5% since '51. Similarily, 1958, it was raised by 25%, and again between 1961 and 1963. The Conservatives, surprinsingly, not Attlee and Beveridge as is so often popularily assumed, raised welfare first. Not to be outdone, Labour under Wilson raised unemplyment by a further 18.5% in 1965.
In the decade beginning in April 1955, Welfare rose by 72% above inflation. Since 1967, unemployment has never returned below 2% again, and reached a peak of 4% in 1970.

I think you mean raised welfare, right?

In 1974, Wilson won the election again. He raised the benefit further, boosting it far above inflation. Benefits stayed high throughout the 70s in real terms. Unemployment had risen to 6% within two years of the '74 hike,and by 1981, stood at a distastros 11.4% (the lag was over and the economy felt the full effect of this disincentivization). Since 1985, however, unemplyment benfits have stayed constant at roughly £54 in 2001 money, declining slowly with inflation (£54.95 in 1985, £53.01 in 2001). But, as wages rose in disproportion to this constant rate, unemployment fell to the reasonbly low levels we know today. As a percentage of avergae real wages, the benefit fell from 32.3% to 19.8%. To compound this, income tax fell, further widening the gap between unemployment benefit and real wages. Accordingly, unemployment has falled by about 60% since the 80s, to a constant rate of roughly 4% since the new millenium.

Any reason why there are no statistics there? I'd like to see how much he raised it compared to his previous raises.

Also, is it reasonable to attribute the unemployment level in 1981 solely to benefits, or did social factors also have an influence? (I'm not an expert on british modern history, but maybe large lay-offs or something and protests?)

The theory that unemployment benefits deincentivize work and raise unemployment is comprehensible in theory and backed by the data, here collated by James Bartholomew and Charles Clarke,in Social Insurance in Britain from 1938 and The Welfare State We're In.

Possibly, but isn't there a level at which cutting benefits is futile and yields no result? I imagine at some point the difference between the money you get and the money you could earn is so big you would get a job anyway.

Whether or not living on welfare is "fun" is certainly subjective, but emprirically, it makes no economic sense to pay heed to claims it's so horrible, since it obviously is more appealing to many than putting in a day's work.

That depends on how much the benefit is, actually. Sure, a hundred or a little more quids a week doesn't seem so horrible, but with 60 it would make me think noone would voluntarily live on that if they didn't do something illegal besides it to earn money. (Or get a job, but you'll always have criminals.)

[Napoleon Ier]

Except that he wasn't doing that. He was saying that welfare is not fun and living on it means you won't have much of a social life. He was saying, that in his experience, the money is low enough already for people to seek a job regardless.

Which is exactly what the statistics don't show.

Social factors, yes, to an extent, but they don't explain the exact correlation you'd expect following the (farily intuitive) principle that unemployment benefits reduce incentive throughout post-War British history.

[heavycola]

The 'benefit' for 'lazy fucks' is, indeed, jobseekers' allowance. Apparently, you've had to live on it for a few months many years ago. Wasit is soooo horrible? Diddums...I suppose you had to give up your evening spliff, and could only sleep with thai-ladyboys once a week. Enough to keep body and soul together, but certainly not enough to fund the old Guardian-addiction or to get best-brand tofu...cry me a fucking river. On a serious note, do you have hard statistics and empirical evidence to back your views, or just unverifiable, subjective personal anecdote?

So your response to hc's claim (based on his experience) that living on jobseeker's allowance is fucked up is saying that it isn't, stopping for a few secs to add a few personal attacks to spice it up a little, and he's lying?

I don't get it. How can you claim his story is a lie when you have not the slightest experience in ever having to live on little money? You're 15 years old Naps, how can you judge things like that? Have you ever had to live on 50 or 60 quid a week? That's no fun, especially as it guarantees you'll have no luxury to speak off. It's food and drink and basic neccesities, nothing more. I don't think anyone wants to live on it for any extended period of time.

Also, how can anyone bring up hard statistics and empirical evidence for that? Sheets of numbers and tests? Of what is actually a subjective view (i.e. the experience that it's not fun)?

No, I can question him and his story, regardless of my age, using statistical evidence. "I am/was on welfare therefore I am justified in pontificating on the subject in whichever way I please" is not a valid line of reasoning. It's an ad hominem fallacy, in a slightly disguised form.
However, "I can and have found data on the matter and analysed it to make valid conclusions" is a sensible line of argument.

Firstly, your attempts at patronisation are doomed, nappy. As ever. Three years of economics at university left me with at least some reading under my belt.

Secondly - no, you paranoid fuckwit, it wasn't an ad hominem attack (an accusation often made by those with nothing else to say) - merely an observation, viz: that life on the dole is a pretty shitty existence. Look at your post: "I am/was" = what was that? An implication that I might still be on the dole? Wot, another risible effort at pigeonholing? Surely not!!1!!!11
Jay, who is actually mad, used to rail against those on welfare in the same language you use, then revealed that at one time he had had to traipse down to his local government office, cap in hand, and pick up a welfare cheque for a few months. He described it as an unbearably humiliating experience, and yet never managed to translate that into any sort of empathy for anyone else in a similar situation. It was one of the most pathetic displays I have ever seen on here. You, at least, have a lack of life experience on your side. Try not to squander it.

[Napoleon Ier]

No, it was ad-hominem since it claimed "he is younger than I am, and hence his points are completely invalid". I certainly wasn't implying you're still on welfare, I don't know about your personal life and won't delve into it. Now please respond substansively to the statistics, or wow me with your economics PhD skills.

[Snorri1234]

Social factors, yes, to an extent, but they don't explain the exact correlation you'd expect following the (farily intuitive) principle that unemployment benefits reduce incentive throughout post-War British history.

Except your statistics show no such thing because they're not broad enough. You link unemployment to benefits without paying any heed to any other factors, it's tenous at best.

I am not saying there is no correlation between unemployment and benefits, but you are ignoring anything that might contradict the correlation-degree that you're claiming.

For example, if unemployment has been steadily 4% since the new millenium then that means that even with the inflation it hasn't lowered. Therefore, it seems a 4% unemployment rate is independent of the welfare that is being given.
And what if you can earn 150 quid a week or receive 60 a week? Wouldn't that basically make working the way more attractive option regardless of the idea that you have to work?

Also, you haven't really responded to my post. You've claimed social factors are not nearly as important as your pet-theory, and have left it at that.

[tzor]

You say "tofu-eating" like it's a bad thing.

Because it is. Soy products have a number of chemicals that are potentially not all that good fror males when taken in large quantities. Simply put for guys this stuff is almost as bad as beef!

And yes I do eat both beef and tofu but both in moderation.

[heavycola]

No, it was ad-hominem since it claimed "he is younger than I am, and hence his points are completely invalid".

Where on earth did you get that from? Do try and be less neurotic.

[Napoleon Ier]

Except your statistics show no such thing because they're not broad enough. You link unemployment to benefits without paying any heed to any other factors, it's tenous at best.

Err...broad? No, snorri, they are the complete graph of unemployment and welfare benefits since 1938. Whilst minor cyclical phenomena can be found, the 'broad' (in every meaning of the word) picture is consistent with my theory.

I am not saying there is no correlation between unemployment and benefits, but you are ignoring anything that might contradict the correlation-degree that you're claiming.

Well, as the opposition in ths argument, it's kind of your job.

For example, if unemployment has been steadily 4% since the new millenium then that means that even with the inflation it hasn't lowered. Therefore, it seems a 4% unemployment rate is independent of the welfare that is being given.

It's been roughly 4-5%, and interestingly, decreasing still. But my cited statistical comparison was between 1938-2001, so please do try and rebutt it using post-2000 stats...not that I think you'll find anything worthwhile other than minor fluctuations, but hey, it's a free country.

And what if you can earn 150 quid a week or receive 60 a week? Wouldn't that basically make working the way more attractive option regardless of the idea that you have to work?

I don't know, you'd have to look at the specific indifference curves and production function graphs.

Also, you haven't really responded to my post. You've claimed social factors are not nearly as important as your pet-theory, and have left it at that.

Unemployment benefits are a social factor, and appear to be the dominant one.

[Snorri1234]

Except your statistics show no such thing because they're not broad enough. You link unemployment to benefits without paying any heed to any other factors, it's tenous at best.

Err...broad? No, snorri, they are the complete graph of unemployment and welfare benefits since 1938. Whilst minor cyclical phenomena can be found, the 'broad' (in every meaning of the word) picture is consistent with my theory.

But you don't use any other factors than unemployment and welfare benefits. You justify that by saying those are the only important ones, but I'd say there are many factors involved in literally every aspect of life so why would this be different?

Maybe "broad" is the wrong word. I'm just saying that you didn't use every influential factor (however minor they may be) to establish your comparison. Your decision to use date from directly post WWII shows that.

For example, if unemployment has been steadily 4% since the new millenium then that means that even with the inflation it hasn't lowered. Therefore, it seems a 4% unemployment rate is independent of the welfare that is being given.

It's been roughly 4-5%, and interestingly, decreasing still. But my cited statistical comparison was between 1938-2001, so please do try and rebutt it using post-2000 stats...not that I think you'll find anything worthwhile other than minor fluctuations, but hey, it's a free country.

Yeah I'm not really willing to look it up anyway.
It seems that a 4%ish unemployment rate is the best you can achieve though. There will always be people unemployed, it doesn't matter if there are benefits or not. (I'm thinking of people "too" old to get a new job, being too well-educated to find much and therefore taking more time to find a job, even criminals and basically all the little exceptions in live.)
The 1.6% from 1951 can be attributed to so many factors it's not a good number to judge modern societies from.

And what if you can earn 150 quid a week or receive 60 a week? Wouldn't that basically make working the way more attractive option regardless of the idea that you have to work?

I don't know, you'd have to look at the specific indifference curves and production function graphs.

I don't know either, but seeing as I'm a very work-shy person and would still take the work I'd say there are few people opting for those benefits.

I'm not talking about people cheating the welfare system ofcourse, for example criminals who earn some money on the side.

[suggs]

I'm sorry, I don't speak unemployed.*

*with apologies to Rt Hon A. B'stard.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well snorri, obviously many Britons consider $60 a weekmore han enough to compensate for maximal leisure time. That's the simple statistical inferrence. Incidentally, you find that in 1938, when unemployment benefits were (surprisingly) higher than post-Beveridge, there was a (much) higher unemployment rate: over one million unemployed. Post-War, an average of 300.000 were unemployed, until 1956, when the effects of hikes starting in 1955 set in.

[InkL0sed]

Well snorri, obviously many Britons consider $60 a weekmore han enough to compensate for maximal leisure time. That's the simple statistical inferrence. Incidentally, you find that in 1938, when unemployment benefits were (surprisingly) higher than post-Beveridge, there was a (much) higher unemployment rate: over one million unemployed. Post-War, an average of 300.000 were unemployed, until 1956, when the effects of hikes starting in 1955 set in.

$60 a week? Are you out of your mind??

Either you're not experienced enough with the dollar, or I'm just used to New York, but that's just... I don't see how anybody could pay the rent with that, much less have time for "maximal leisure time."

[Napoleon Ier]

Well snorri, obviously many Britons consider $60 a weekmore han enough to compensate for maximal leisure time. That's the simple statistical inferrence. Incidentally, you find that in 1938, when unemployment benefits were (surprisingly) higher than post-Beveridge, there was a (much) higher unemployment rate: over one million unemployed. Post-War, an average of 300.000 were unemployed, until 1956, when the effects of hikes starting in 1955 set in.

$60 a week? Are you out of your mind??

Either you're not experienced enough with the dollar, or I'm just used to New York, but that's just... I don't see how anybody could pay the rent with that, much less have time for "maximal leisure time."

I mean £. That's about $130.

[suggs]

Nap pressed the wrong key. 60 pounds a week, lets say 100 dollars.

And Nap, you sure about you figures for pre WW2? Seems unlikely. But you're the man with the big textbook, so for once i wont make a ridiculous assertion like "OH, THATS BALL BUSTINGLY BAD BOLLOCKS!", only to climb down in my next post as its revealed that, once again, my factual knowledge is comparable to my knowledge of inducing female orgasms.

[Snorri1234]

Well snorri, obviously many Britons consider $60 a weekmore han enough to compensate for maximal leisure time.

But do they really?
You claim this, but just because not everybody is employed does not mean those who are unemployed enjoy it. The assumption you have is that anyone who doesn't like being unemployed therefore won't be unemployed, but is that really truthfull? I know, for example, that there are people who are rejected from every job-interview simply because they're "too" old. (Not said as such ofcourse, the company just says they're looking for a "dynamic team of people who can relate to the struggles of modern teenagers".) Noone wants to hire a 50-year old because there is not much of a future in them and they'd cost too much, but they are too young to get a pension. So is it really their fault that they're unemployed? (Assuming them being fired wasn't their fault.) Would they get a job if welfare was cut even more?

That's the simple statistical inferrence. Incidentally, you find that in 1938, when unemployment benefits were (surprisingly) higher than post-Beveridge, there was a (much) higher unemployment rate: over one million unemployed. Post-War, an average of 300.000 were unemployed, until 1956, when the effects of hikes starting in 1955 set in.

So before lots of people got killed in the war there was a lower unemployment rate than after lots of people got killed (and there was also, might I add, a program that put people at work if they had been out of a job for too long)?
That really doesn't say anything, particularly since you're using 1938 as a guidepoint and not for example 1920. It seems (though I'm not clear on the actual percentages) that pre-war the unemployment-rate was pretty much the same as it is now.

The social factors here really don't tell us anything about welfare, nappy. Comparing anything around the war to anything not in that time is futile, because you'll always hold the enormous impact the war had. It's really comparing planetoids to oranges. They may have a similiar shape, but they're way too different to compare.

[Napoleon Ier]

Nap pressed the wrong key. 60 pounds a week, lets say 100 dollars.

And Nap, you sure about you figures for pre WW2? Seems unlikely. But you're the man with the big textbook, so for once i wont make a ridiculous assertion like "OH, THATS BALL BUSTINGLY BAD BOLLOCKS!", only to climb down in my next post as its revealed that, once again, my factual knowledge is comparable to my knowledge of inducing female orgasms.

Yeah, I was surprised too, but it turns out that Beveridge reccomended raising the benefits from 85p to £1.20. However, post-War, £1.20 basically equated to 75p in pre-War money.

A simple google gave me wikipedia certified confirmation of my Bartholomey/Clarke stats on pre-war unemployment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression_in_the_United_Kingdom#Rearmament_and_recovery

[Snorri1234]

Nap pressed the wrong key. 60 pounds a week, lets say 100 dollars.

More, mostly due to that ever-falling dollar. I think it's about 90-100 euros, something which I can't imagine living on as half of that money goes to rent. (Living in the cheapest places. At the moment I'm paying about 315 euros fucking rent!)

[Napoleon Ier]

Well snorri, obviously many Britons consider $60 a weekmore han enough to compensate for maximal leisure time.

But do they really?
You claim this, but just because not everybody is employed does not mean those who are unemployed enjoy it. The assumption you have is that anyone who doesn't like being unemployed therefore won't be unemployed, but is that really truthfull? I know, for example, that there are people who are rejected from every job-interview simply because they're "too" old. (Not said as such ofcourse, the company just says they're looking for a "dynamic team of people who can relate to the struggles of modern teenagers".) Noone wants to hire a 50-year old because there is not much of a future in them and they'd cost too much, but they are too young to get a pension. So is it really their fault that they're unemployed? (Assuming them being fired wasn't their fault.) Would they get a job if welfare was cut even more?

Except unemployment is highest amongst the young.

That's the simple statistical inferrence. Incidentally, you find that in 1938, when unemployment benefits were (surprisingly) higher than post-Beveridge, there was a (much) higher unemployment rate: over one million unemployed. Post-War, an average of 300.000 were unemployed, until 1956, when the effects of hikes starting in 1955 set in.

So before lots of people got killed in the war there was a lower unemployment rate than after lots of people got killed (and there was also, might I add, a program that put people at work if they had been out of a job for too long)?
That really doesn't say anything, particularly since you're using 1938 as a guidepoint and not for example 1920. It seems (though I'm not clear on the actual percentages) that pre-war the unemployment-rate was pretty much the same as it is now.

The social factors here really don't tell us anything about welfare, nappy. Comparing anything around the war to anything not in that time is futile, because you'll always hold the enormous impact the war had. It's really comparing planetoids to oranges. They may have a similiar shape, but they're way too different to compare.[/quote]

Hmm...yah Snorri, 200.000 Brits died in the war. Unemployment was reduced from 1.5 million in 1938 to 300.000 in 1950. Non sequitur...

Besides, my statistics cover far more than the post-War period, don't they? I've got the whole welfare history lined up right up to 2001. So I'm sorry, but you're grasping at straws here. Welfareism is really the only explanation for these mushroomings and peaks of unemployment historically.

[Snorri1234]

Except unemployment is highest amongst the young.

Do they all use welfare too though? I, being a 19 year old lad, know quite a few young unemployed people, but generally they are either depending on their parents for some time or deciding on what to do with their lives.
Incidentally, what is the definition of unemployment? I know that to apply for jobseekers allowance you can work up to 16 hours a week but not more, but are people with such jobs considered unemployed or not?

Also, young criminals who abuse the system?

Hmm...yah Snorri, 200.000 Brits died in the war. Unemployment was reduced from 1.5 million in 1938 to 300.000 in 1950. Non sequitur...

A moment ago it was "over one million" but now it's 1.5 million already? Might as well have said that immediately, as I could've refrained from talking about that.

Regardless, that thing you listed from wikipedia also said unemployment was dropping from earlier. 1.5 million was actually the lowest from about 1933, besides britain was still feeling the effects of the depression from earlier on so high unemployment was no suprise.

Also, you are ignoring the effect military mobilization had on the unemployment rate. It ended mass unemployment and when those soldiers got back they probably could more easily get a job and also they were probably a little older seeing as it was 7 years later. Basically they were used to military discipline, were veterans and also the depression had ended. Sounds to me like unemployment-rates dropping was no surpise. (Especially since it had been dropping since 1933 and there was a 7 year gap where everyone had a job.)

See what I mean, Nappy? It's silly to compare anything around the war to anything not around the war. Compare 1965 too now, but don't compare 1930-1950 to anything else.

Besides, my statistics cover far more than the post-War period, don't they? I've got the whole welfare history lined up right up to 2001. So I'm sorry, but you're grasping at straws here. Welfareism is really the only explanation for these mushroomings and peaks of unemployment historically.

Yeah you're statistics cover more than that, but that was not my beef.

My intent, as ever, is to point out that your explanation is oversimplifying the issue. Sure, high welfare-benefits only increase unemployment, but to claim that there is no point at which the benefits received are so low that the leisure-time from non-working is not a good deal anymore is being simplistic.