Written By: Zetetic - Date published: 1:25 pm, February 29th, 2012 - 32 comments
Categories: jobs, national -
Tags: broken promises, jobs summit
National Employment Indicator
National’s management of the economy has been completely predicated on borrowing and spending, with no strategy or commonsense.
And precious little focus on helping out the vast majority of NZers who are on less than $50K pa and plenty of focus on helping rich mates make more money by taking money off workers.
There was some growth in jobs pertaining to death. Deaths in the year ending December 2011 – up six percent, or 1640, on the 2010 year. For the first time deaths exceeded 30,000. There were 30,080 reported deaths.
The preventable deaths are the ones which concern me. Buildings not properly checked, medical errors, employers cutting corners e.g. bad work conditions, unrealistic demands on workers and the most unacceptable, the fatal bashing of defenseless children.
I’m sure people dying adds to GDP somehow so is it all bad.
So given the apparent fact that job growth or loss is all the governments fault what the hell did Labour do to drop jobs by 25,000 in 9 months
[a little something called the Great Recession happened that year. Eddie]
Don’t be simplistic. National made a promise of 4000 jobs from a cycleway which was never ever going to eventuate. Its also keeping the NZ dollar at historical highs which is killing our manufacturing exporters (same as Labour). And the wealth pump which are the Australian banks sending billions a year offshore – that has to be stopped.
Selling off our most productive assets including farmland is a formula for long term ruin, but what do these Tories care – they get to line their pockets today.
I’m not arguing any of that if you see my comment below I have a feeling something is wrong with the graph.
NZ Herald report on the cycleway. Note the photo used, and the nature of the story: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10692801
In fact just going by this graph does it not show that the jobs summit was a huge success.
Just to run through this from January 2008 to February 2009 62,000 jobs were lost – effectively 9 months of Labour and 4 months of National (who would have had no time to do anything). Then since February 2009 only 3,000 jobs have been lost.
That’s a pretty good effort from the summit I would have thought.
But given this is a left leaning blog I assume I am happy to admit there is a strong possibility I am reading the graph incorrectly, especially since I have not followed the link to the information provided and and basing it solely off the graph.
Yep, I’m having a bit of difficulty following it myself. ‘Since Job Summit’ looks like the square peg to me. The others fit the sequence, but that column seems awfully short.
A bit of contextual info would be helpful, Zet.
too bad about you being too lazy to click a link, even if it is just to educate yourself chris….. then maybe we could have been spared another dissembling…… which seems to have become the M O of pretty much every tory apologist on here…..
what’s up? got no real ammo or something?
Not sure what you’re asking here? Was simply pointing out it is terrible graph if you are trying to show how much National has failed.
I looked at the data and it shows the graph is accurate – so why would the dissembling have been saved?
no answer then? never mind,…. i was expecting that….
How can I answer when I have no idea what you are asking for? In fact as far as I can tell your only question was got no real ammo. Ammo for what? You don’t ask any real questions then criticize me for not answering – good work
Back to the post though yes jobs dropped initially under National as they did under the last part of the last Labour government, primarily as a result of the recession – since 2009 they have generally been climbing again. Indicating perhaps the government isn’t actually at fault for the job loss. Does that answer your non-question
Back to the post though yes jobs dropped initially under National as they did under the last part of the last Labour government, primarily as a result of the recession…
Funny, isn’t it…
When National is held to account for high unemployment and lack of jobs – it’s the fault of the recession.
When welfare is debated, unemployment is the fault of beneficiaries, who are labelled as bludgers.
Which is it?
Are you asking me? Because I don’t believe that unemployment is the fault of the beneficiaries and have never said it was?
I just don’t believe that the drop in jobs is National’s fault anymore than it was Labour fault previously
You just don’t get it. When we have a Labour govt and the economy is going well (normal in first term under socialism) then it’s Labour’s policies…. but when things go bad under Labour (normal in term 2 or 3) then it’s the global economy….
Then when having rooted the economy with excessive spending and over taxation Labour are thrown out of office (normal for Labour after 2 terms) it’s all National’s fault.
Come on Chris, like the Soviet Union… it was going great guns right till the last minute when people ditched communism socialism… it was ditching communism socialism that made them broke… life was glorious before that…..
Having actually worked in the FSU it was my experience that the ordinary people had very mixed feelings about their life under the Soviet state. Before capitalism came to Russia they might not have had political freedom, but they had families, homes, jobs, food, superb schooling, universities, hosptitals… and on the weekends they caught a cheap train out of town to the family dacha by a river or lake, caught fish and lived on mushrooms and berries. Life was actually ok.
They did realise that the totalitarian state had to come to an end; while at the same time there was huge bitterness about how the Western capitalists had bankrupted their country, stolen their assets (sound familiar) and then abandoned them.
It was only the fact of their intensely socialist history that meant that all the people who kept society running, albeit at often a very basic level, still turned up to work, still kept the water, the power, the schools, the hospitals, etc.. kept the going even when they were often not beiing paid for months on end.
The cops might shake you down now and then, but mainly to put some gas in the Lada so as they could still get around town.
Everyone had two or three jobs or black market scheme of some sort just to keep alive. I rented an apartment from two doctors … who gladly moved out for three months… because my hard currency rent tripled their income.
I’m not glamourising it burt. I saw some grim things I’ve never talked about and I’m not about to here. But as a society they’ve survived a capitalist collapse of the worst kind in a way we could never dream of in the West. I saw it up close burt and it left a lasting impression.
Default response #1: Labour’s fault.
Well some of notice the pattern that forms when we flip-flop from Labour to National every 3-9 years. Perhaps if you watch the pre-election Labour campaign again you can try and explain to me how after every “great rebuilding” from Labour, which showed a great and prosperous NZ, it suddenly flipped to “Nasty National” raining down hard times on NZ…..
Was it because NZ voters hated having life so glorious under Labour so they voted for hardship or was it because invariably the policies of Labour are like a heroin fix…. the initial rush and euphoria of rampant redistribution and intervention feels great then the effects start to wear off and the hangover kicks in ….
Interested to hear your explanation as to why it’s National’s fault that they seem to always inherit a rooted stagnant economy from Labour.
Happy to oblige, Burt. The data can be found here; http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/labour-the-economic-record-2000-2008/
You’ll note that unemployment was down during Labour’s term; wages rose; government surpluses were up; and a few other positive (as well as a few negative) indicators.
Perhaps if you watch the pre-election Labour campaign again you can try and explain to me how after every “great rebuilding” from Labour, which showed a great and prosperous NZ, it suddenly flipped to “Nasty National” raining down hard times on NZ…..
This happened in the 1990s, when National cut taxes (twice) and cut spending on social services. Once again, NZ ended up with a widening gap in income and inadequate social services.
It’s interesting that people had had a gutsful of National by 1999, and the election that year practically reversed the number of seats held by Labour and National. If Nasty National was such a great government – why were they turfed out?
Was it because NZ voters hated having life so glorious under Labour so they voted for hardship or was it because invariably the policies of Labour are like a heroin fix
Because wages rose under Labour?
Because social services met the needs of society?
Just a few “pointers”.
By the way, I might remind you that our Dear Leader promised to raise wages – and has yet to fulfill his pledge.
And a question for you , Burt; at what point does National start taking responsibility for failure of it’s own policies?
This happened in the 1990s, when National cut taxes (twice)
It happened in 2008 as well. As the graphs in the blog you linked to show, unemployment was already falling when Labour inherited the economy in 1999. Somehow… National made it go back up again while Labour were still in power……
OK so the peak for job loss in 08 was when Labour was in power great chart! Totally agree. We all know when Labour were in power in 08 the World economic down turn was no where as bad as it is now or since National has been in.
So what you are telling me is National has done a great job in difficult circumstances couldnt agree more thanks for the article
[you know James, this place isn’t like your high school. We don’t have to let you come no matter how dumb you are. yes, the recession began worldwide in the first half of 08 – remember the subprime crisis and the credit crunch? – and NZ had a drought to boot. I can’t believe you say the downturn was worse then than now – five quarters of recession, the world financial system frozen. National has had three years to recover and we’re still losing jobs. Eddie]
“So what you are telling me is National has done a great job in difficult circumstances couldnt agree more thanks for the article”
James you seem to be looking in the wrong place for some feel-good, redneck National propaganda to satisfy your fetish for all things blue. The article regarding good news brought about by your beloved National does’t seem to be forthcoming due to their inability to do anything for the public good.
Now James why don’t you (and the rest of your year 8 class) write letters to your local National MP or John Key even and voice your concerns about their lack of ability to do anything of value for the WHOLE of the NZ population.
Eddie the data doesn’t back that up up until September we were growing jobs again. the last couple of months have dipped again slightly but they haven’t been shedding jobs the way you suggest.
Isn’t negative job loss the same as job growth?
No… Negative job loss is what happens under National, job growth only happens under Labour.
Zero minus negative five is positive five. So if you lose -10,100 jobs, you end up with +10,100 jobs. This is in regards to the chart above, not the data that is linked to. I think the label is wrong.
Think you missed the point a bit there.
Yes, that’s quite possible.
Paula Bennett reckons the jobs are there for people to take.
WHAT JOBS? I have been trying to find work since my Christchurch job died with the building it was in on 22 February 2011, and there are two things that are quite clear:
1) Many of the jobs that are supposed to exist, don’t. Those that do are swamped by applicants and the chances of scoring an interview are sometimes as low as 1/30.
2) Employers are fussy. I have done postgraduate, have skills that would really useful in Christchurch and none of the applications filed in the last year have landed me jobs and many have gone completely unacknowledged.
What use is that?
i believe that labour and national are essentially the same party. They both agreed to make us live in the same type of system with slightly different views on very few details, but the general propositions are exactly the same: Low inflation and protecting the capital.
At the end, what the parties are really interested, is protecting the banks and their only asset: Money Capital, that with inflation would be devalued spreading the wealth.
The situation here is even worse off, because 4 out of 5 banks are australians and the huge profit are sent overseas overnight, skimming the country off of further funds.
Until one party decides to stop the anti market privilege to let the bank know how much they can approx lose with their capital in one, ( stability pack says that our inflation has to be between 0 and 3%) there will be no opportunities for a real economic boom, because banks are not interested in booming time, but in controlling the money supply and the expansion thereof, so the devaluation of their capital is under control.
All banks want is stability and that’s all they have.
All employers and employees want is opportunities and that won’t happen with low tight inflation.
The Standard is proudly powered by
WordPress. Theme by Mummybot.
142 queries. 0.810 seconds.