Your city's Economic/Office News

[Irwell]

Originally Posted by wiggleyleeds

No, you need to look at the percentage change of the indice, not the actual change, otherwise you are not showing proportional growth. A change of 0.10 (from 2.00 to 1.90) is a lesser inverse growth from a change of 0.10 (from 1.20 to 1.10)

Why precisely do you want me to show the growth in proportion to the number of jobs? What exactly is it supposed to represent? Do you honestly think that the improvement to Liverpool's employment figures is less impressive than many of the other cities merely because they had more unemployed people beforehand?

Incidentally, the singular of indices is index, not indice.

[Soul_13]

I would like to see how many of these Manchester jobs are for public sector......

[Irwell]

Originally Posted by Soul_13

I would like to see how many of these Manchester jobs are for public sector......

Probably just shy of 2%.

[Soul_13]

It's that a fact or your honest estimation???Actualy I would like to see a table with all major cities...

[Irwell]

Originally Posted by Soul_13

It's that a fact or your honest estimation???Actualy I would like to see a table with all major cities...

That's an honest attempt at an estimate, but how accurate it is I can't say. I might be able to get a more accurate figure, but it'll take a lot of fiddling to calculate it.

[wiggleyleeds]

Originally Posted by Irwell

Why precisely do you want me to show the growth in proportion to the number of jobs? What exactly is it supposed to represent?

Because a list of cities ranked in order of the number of new jobs created does not show the cities ranked according to job growth (even though you suggested it does sneakily)

You then avoided displaying a ranking for *real* job growth (which would probably put leeds, bristol and nottingham 1st), and instead chose to show a list of the change in ratio of jobs to people, which *again* does not show a ranking of jobs to people growth, because just like before, its not proportionate, and therefore is not a ranking.

[Irwell]

Originally Posted by wiggleyleeds

Because a list of cities ranked in order of the number of new jobs created does not show the cities ranked according to job growth (even though you suggested it does sneakily)

You then avoided displaying a ranking for *real* job growth (which would probably put leeds, bristol and nottingham 1st), and instead chose to show a list of the change in ratio of jobs to people, which *again* does not show a ranking of jobs to people growth, because just like before, its not proportionate, and therefore is not a ranking.

It's completely proportionate. It's proportionate to the number of people who live there. Fair enough though, if you want an extra table, here it is.

(Job increases / Jobs) * 10^6

Liverpool - -1.99
Sheffield - -1.70
Bristol - -1.05
Nottingham - -0.78
Leeds - -0.65
Manchester - -0.41
Birmingham - -0.18
London - -0.05

[wiggleyleeds]

Here's the employment growth list for all cities in the UK, from the State of the English Cities Report 2006



And here is there findings, straight from the Report:

[Eastisleast]

Originally Posted by Irwell

That's an honest attempt at an estimate, but how accurate it is I can't say. I might be able to get a more accurate figure, but it'll take a lot of fiddling to calculate it.

Ah! fiddling.

Methinks all these figures are fiddled and should be taken with several pinches of salt. The Gordy Brown method of calculation seems to be in operation here. i.e. double/triple counting, presenting the same facts as different realities and pure mythical spin.

[wiggleyleeds]

As you can see, Leeds outshone all the core cities significantly in terms of employment growth between that period. It Also outshone nearly all towns/cities in the UK apart from several of the 'new' towns.

[Irwell]

Originally Posted by Eastisleast

Ah! fiddling.

Methinks all these figures are fiddled and should be taken with several pinches of salt. The Gordy Brown method of calculation seems to be in operation here. i.e. double/triple counting, presenting the same facts as different realities and pure mythical spin.

Fiddling as in messing with figures to work out who was public sector and who was private sector. It's not that simple.

[Irwell]

Wiggley, do you think maybe that table mentions "Mets" because it's based on Metropolitan counties? You're first to jump on Metropolitan figures for population purposes, which is fair enough, but don't then use them for economic purposes as they include the poorer parts of GM which are excluded from the PUA.

[Eastisleast]

Originally Posted by Irwell

Fiddling as in messing with figures to work out who was public sector and who was private sector. It's not that simple.

Not you Irky. The Government. Wouldn't trust this lot to count accurately the fingers on one hand and come up with the right answer.

[wiggleyleeds]

Originally Posted by Irwell

Wiggley, do you think maybe that table mentions "Mets" because it's based on Metropolitan counties? You're first to jump on Metropolitan figures for population purposes, which is fair enough, but don't then use them for economic purposes as they include the poorer parts of GM which are excluded from the PUA.

sorry to tell you this, but those figures are for PUAs - read the SOCD report, the are reffered to as the Mets all throughout the document, but it explicitly states all data is for PUAs

[Irwell]

Originally Posted by wiggleyleeds

sorry to tell you this, but those figures are for PUAs - read the SOCD report, the are reffered to as the Mets all throughout the document, but it explicitly states all data is for PUAs

Interesting, because it contradicts the SOCD.

[Mercurius]

3 years out of date, figures change over time.

[wiggleyleeds]

yup true. Estimates for 2006-2020 put Leeds at the top again for growth, along with manchester & nottingham, whilst lowest is Brum out of the core cities. ALtho, who knows wots in the future. With the current financial downturn, of which London & Leeds' are driven by, things could change

[Irwell]

Originally Posted by Mercurius

3 years out of date, figures change over time.

Indeed they do, but not that much. Birmingham will still be underperforming now on a decade long comparison. A boost in the space of a year or two does not necessarily mean economic resurgence.

[Mercurius]

Why have u replied to my post in relation to Birmingham? Im not bothered by all of this competition between the cities like whoever comes first is the "best." I stated what i did as a matter of fact. I just dont get what the fascination with these figures all it promotes is childishness and bias.

[rottersclub]

Originally Posted by Irwell

Probably just shy of 2%.

Interesting article in today's guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...ailers.retail3

They quote an article from the Cambridge Economic Journal:

Coutts, Glyn and Rowthorn say that there is a simpler explanation: public money, and lots of it, has raised employment levels.

"Public-service employment alone accounts for virtually all of the increase in employment in the north since 1989, and for much of the growth since 1997," the authors say. "The total amount of employment created by public spending is much greater than this direct effect, once government purchases from the private sector are included as well. If we take into account these further direct and multiplier effects, it seems plausible that the entire growth of employment in the north since 1997 is the result of public expenditure." Higher public spending in the northern regions has not just been a matter of government largesse; there had previously been an imbalance in service provision in favour of the south. The recent employment trends show just how vulnerable the north could be if the worrying state of the public finances led to a marked reduction in state support. It seems improbable that even the hefty dollops of central government cash have resulted in the private sector yet putting down deep enough roots to withstand a more bracing fiscal environment.