16% of travellers in employment

johnnyskeleton

Tha Gopher wrote: »

LOL

Your point is what exactly? I took it to be that not every traveller who classed themselves in the census as unemployed is claiming dole. I agreed. However, neither are they contributing to the economy. Dont you think they should be? Given how successful our economy currently is? If you made another point, please state it, as i cannot see it.

My point is that the indo stats are wrong, as has been pointed out by many before me. You ignored all of that (about 30 lines) and focused on the last line.

Tha Gopher

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

My point is that the indo stats are wrong, as has been pointed out by many before me. You ignored all of that (about 30 lines) and focused on the last line.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/only-16pc-of-travellers-are--in-employment-1231891.html

You are right. The indo is talking crap with its big headline.

It is not 16%. It is actually 15.8%. The indo has been printing lies in its headlines by claiming 0.2% more travellers in the surveyed age group are in legitimate employment than really are. Ima write a letter right now :rolleyes:

Now, I can understand the disabled figure. I can accept the figure for black people of working age seeing as a large amount are asylum seekers and therefore cannot seek employment.

Yet again

"Some 87pc of men and 70pc of women aged 25-44 are in employment, but this falls to just 15.8pc among Travellers OF THIS AGE GROUP"

I have quoted that piece at least once here. Maybe twice. I cant recall.

If it said "84% of travellers claim dole" it may well be wrong.

It didnt.

Please back up your assertion on the matter. Likewise to Hobbes if he is still reading. Otherwise I will report both of you for misrepresenting facts/stats to win an argument (something that is not mentioned in the charter but is nevertheless an underhand way to try and steer an argument in your favour and discredit those who disagree with you). Back up your assertions or i WILL report you for bull. It is a discussion forum, not a "im right fcuk you" board.

Do not try and claim the indo is counting the elderly and children.
Do not say the indo is saying 84% of travellers are on benefits.

Cheers lads.

johnnyskeleton

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Please back up your assertion on the matter.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54795785&postcount=102

Tha Gopher wrote: »

It is a discussion forum, not a "im right fcuk you" board.

Tha Gopher

"Unemployed: Persons who, in the week before Census Day, were without work and available for work within
the next two weeks, and had taken specific steps, in the preceding four weeks, to find work."

"Unemployment Rate
The Unemployment Rate is the number unemployed expressed as a percentage of the total labour force."

"Some 87pc of men and 70pc of women aged 25-44 are in employment, but this falls to just 15.8pc among Travellers OF THIS AGE GROUP"



You see, the first two copy paste jobs there are the bits that dont really add up in regards to your argument. It would appear that only 15.8% of the total number of travellers who should be in the labour force are actually in it. Now, bar a massive amount of travellers have legitimate physical or mental disabilities preventing them from working, you do not have a point here.

Simply, 84% of travellers on census night were out of work. The majority of these people are physically and mentally able to work. Not all of them are on benefit, but it is safe to assume a large amount of them are. Now tbh i dont recall anything on my census form mentioning looking for work in the last four weeks but anyway. Honestly, where exactly is your point?

Admit the flaw or prove me wrong, otherwise I WILL report you. That goes for Hobbes too.

Oilrig

Never seen a poor one... :rolleyes:

Tha Gopher

Still waiting.......