Grant Robertson on the adjusted unemployment figure

Written By: - Date published: 7:02 am, August 17th, 2016 - 206 comments
Categories: grant robertson, jobs, unemployment - Tags: ,

Today the Household Labour Force Survey is released. The method used to calculate the headline unemployment figure has changed since the previous release. This caused some discussion on Twitter yesterday, and Grant Robertson posted the following on Facebook:

Tomorrow the latest Household Labour Force Survey is released. These are the official statistics used to track, among other things, the level of unemployment. This will be the first survey undertaken since a change in how someone is defined as being unemployed. To be considered unemployed you need not only to be out of work, but also ‘actively seeking work’. Fair enough. But what is considered actively seeking work has changed. Looking on the internet on a website such as Seek or Trade Me is now considered “passive” rather than “active” and therefore is not sufficient for the person to be included as being unemployed. The result when this new criteria was applied to the last survey’s results was that unemployment magically went down from 5.7% to 5.2%.

This change in measurement just does not fit with the modern world and how people go about looking for work.

I accept the Chief Statistician’s assurance there was no political interference in the decision to make this change. What I know is that we have a National government that regularly misuses and misrepresents statistics and mark my words they will do it with this change particularly closer to the election.

The sad reality is that while the change in measurement might elicit a lower number or percentage it will not mean one fewer person is unemployed. We need a more active government partnering with communities to create decent meaningful work right across NZ, not just celebrating a statistical change.

206 comments on “Grant Robertson on the adjusted unemployment figure ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Anonymous Bloke 1
    17 August 2016 at 8:10 am

    RNZ reported on the drop in the figures back in February…no-one believed them, apart from Steven Joyce, apparently. Either that or the Minister lied deliberately.

    There are 14,300 fewer people involved in the wider workforce in a quarter – that’s something to be concerned about

    Robertson…

    Today’s big drop in unemployment is largely driven by a drop in the participation rate – which is a surprise and is at odds with history,”

    Genter.

    Farrar covered the definition change on his National Party blog at the beginning of July.

  2. Sabine 2
    17 August 2016 at 8:21 am

    so what is the definition of actively seeking for a job?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1
      17 August 2016 at 8:50 am

      MSD has the clearest explanation:

      The officially unemployed are people aged 15 years or over who:

      are without any paid work and without unpaid work in a relative’s business
      have actively sought work in the previous four weeks (ie done more than check newspaper advertisements)

      are available to take up work.

      Stats NZ are less informative:

      Unemployed: all people in the working-age population who during the reference week were without a paid job, available for work, and had either actively sought work in the past four weeks ending with the reference week, or had a new job to start within the next four weeks.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1
        17 August 2016 at 11:02 am

        have actively sought work in the previous four weeks (ie done more than check newspaper advertisements)

        I wonder what they mean by ‘actively’. That would seem to be the definition needed rather than the negative definition supplied.

        I suspect that they mean going round knocking on businesses doors which is a) unaffordable for those unemployed, b) pisses off the possible employers because you’re wasting their time and money and c) unlikely to get you a job in anything other than manual labour (Last time I went for an internet help desk role the interview was four hours long).

        All of which means that you’re unlikely to get a job from knocking on doors. Basically, it’s not the beginning of last century or even the 1970s/80s any more and it’s time that they updated their definitions for the new century and the changes that have happened.

        • McFlock 2.1.1.1
          17 August 2016 at 11:17 am

          A quota of job applications.

          To keep winz happy back in the day I had to apply for jobs I knew I was completely unqualified and/or unsuited for, simply to keep the bastards off my back.

          Which is why hiring staff today involves culling a good quarter to half of CVs right at the start, simply on a “you must be joking” level, for any job.

          On the plus side, when the recruiter was a paid consultant I got called in for pre-interview screening just because I had one or two interesting (though in no way useful for the role) things on my CV. Half hour chat and a laugh on someone else’s dime.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.2
          17 August 2016 at 11:25 am

          By MSD’s definition – “more than” – if you check newspaper adverts and websites you’re unemployed.

      • Sabine 2.1.2
        17 August 2016 at 3:58 pm

        let me clarify my comment,

        if am without paid work and actively search a job via seek, trade me and any other online media the government will not count me as actively seeking a job.

        does that mean if i post letters via the post office to prospective employers i am actively looking?

        if I send carrier pigeons with my cv to prospective employers is that actively looking?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.1
          17 August 2016 at 4:08 pm

          I’m just going off what it says on MSD’s website, as per the quote. If you are doing “more than” looking in the newspapers for job adverts (and are available for work) you meet the definition. For all I know they have some small print they include in info to dole applicants, but on the face of it your example of looking online as well as in the press would suffice.

          Jobless advocates probably have the whole story…I’ve had a bit of a look at WINZ’s website and they talk about “reasonable steps”…

          • ankerawshark 2.1.2.1.1
            17 August 2016 at 6:58 pm

            Shouldn’t it be more of a rule yourself out situation. i.e. I don’t have a job, I checked Seek, but no I don’t want a job (maybe I am being supported by a partner or looking after my child)

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.1.1.1
              17 August 2016 at 7:40 pm

              Nah. The government needs to accept its role as the most influential force in the market and stop pretending that the results of its National party values are someone else’s problem.

  3. jcuknz 3
    17 August 2016 at 8:29 am

    A beaurocrat has a ‘bright’ idea and destroys the consistency of the stats.

    • AmaKiwi 3.1
      17 August 2016 at 11:06 am

      How to lie with statistics. It’s an essential tool in every government’s bag of tricks.

  4. miravox 4
    17 August 2016 at 8:44 am

    “Looking on the internet on a website such as Seek or Trade Me is now considered “passive” rather than “active” and therefore is not sufficient for the person to be included as being unemployed.”

    That’s rich from the bureaucrats of a government who wants this from its public service

    The New Zealand government wants public services to be radically transformed for the benefit of all New Zealanders – and ICT is a key tool that will make this possible.

    ICT.govt.nz is the official site for the New Zealand Government ICT Functional Leader, the Government Chief Information Officer.

    Government services online but get out your walking boots or make sure you have enough minutes on your phone to be considered a jobseeker

    Do they think employers still want to do things with paper and pen? or that the public can get a human on a phone or walk through the security doors of prospective employers unimpeded?

    • Duncan 4.1
      17 August 2016 at 5:53 pm

      In the town where I am people go to the library and look for and apply for jobs online.
      They are all unemployed. Or should I now say “were” unemployed.

      • miravox 4.1.1
        17 August 2016 at 10:05 pm

        Exactly. I guess congratulations are in order now they are no longer unemployed *sigh*

        Maybe before they look up on line they can have a form letter waiting on the library desk that states they came in and asked the Librarian for a job, but none were available at the Library and get it signed by the Librarian. That’s door-knocking isn’t it? 😉

        Then go online and hunt for the real thing.

  5. Steve 5
    17 August 2016 at 9:10 am

    So unemployment magically went down from 5.7% to 5.2% for the March 2016 quarter. When i looked at the Stats site it has 5.9% for the March quarter with 152.3 thousand unemployed. http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7080

  6. DH 6
    17 August 2016 at 9:23 am

    How do people look for work these days? Do most employers still advertise directly or is it dominated by the employment agencies now?

    • indiana 6.1
      17 August 2016 at 10:47 am

      Looking and applying are two different things. Labour knows this, but don’t like the results.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1
        17 August 2016 at 11:08 am

        That seems to be a difference that exists only in your mind.

      • McFlock 6.1.2
        17 August 2016 at 11:24 am

        Looking and “seeking” are very similar things, however.

        But yes, let’s have 5% of the population sending off 5 applications a week for jobs they are unqualified for, unsuited for, and don’t have a shitshow of getting. Nothing gets people into work like the constant drum of rejection. And employers love getting job applications for receptionists from illiterate people who “can answer phones”, or warehouse applications from people who can’t reach above their shoulders. Brightens up their day no end.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.2
      17 August 2016 at 11:06 am

      Dominated by word of mouth (last time I heard up to 70% of job placements was by word of mouth). After that you get employment agencies and then those very few businesses that still do their own advertising in local rags.

  7. Cinny 7
    17 August 2016 at 9:26 am

    I feel March quarter should always be taken with a grain of salt, seasonal work is humming during that time, hospitality and retail sector always take on more staff during xmas.

    Employed is also classified as any who work an hour a week or more, that is deceptive as well.

    Use the net to find work they say, come in and use the computers at MSD if you have no internet access they say; then all of a sudden that is not actively looking for work?

    Are MSD actively encouraging businesses to find employees via MSD database?

  8. shorts 8
    17 August 2016 at 9:40 am

    Juking the stats… juking the stats… argue about what the stats mean….

    Did I miss the bit where anyone said the figure was unacceptable and their party would drop unemployment by x% by doing “______”

    Every time the rate is published their is the bickering around the numbers…

    or is the whole thing petty point scoring and politics – which is great if you’ve got a job… and house and food in the cupboard

    • Draco T Bastard 8.1
      17 August 2016 at 11:13 am

      National believes that the minimum unemployment possible is ~6% (Bill English late 1990s).

      Labour also runs the economy in a way that will always have unemployment but they do tend to have less than under National.

      • alwyn 8.1.1
        17 August 2016 at 1:20 pm

        Do you have a citation for Bill English saying that the minimum possible unemployment level was 6%?

        • Adrian 8.1.1.1
          17 August 2016 at 2:31 pm

          “That reminded me of an old press release from Bill English just before the 1999 election where he called unemployment in the range of 3% “a hoax” and suggested 6% might be a more realistic target:

          “Labour’s policies will increases taxes, give unions more power in the workplace, make it harder for employers to give young people a chance at a job, and impose extra costs on business. These policies will not help create one job.

          “It is business which creates jobs, not the Government. The Government’s job is to create the right conditions for growth. We must support business with lower costs and flexible labour market policies, and do our bit by keeping Government spending down.

          “The recent pre-election opening of the books showed that if we continue with National’s policies over the next three years we will be able to create another 115,000 jobs and bring unemployment under 6%. These are realistic targets.

          “Labour’s claim that it can bring the unemployment rate down to 3% is also a hoax on all the people who think if they voted Labour they would get a job.”

          http://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-hoax-on-unemployed-workers/

          Sorry for the cut and paste of the whole bit…but it is interesting blah from Bill.

          • alwyn 8.1.1.1.1
            17 August 2016 at 2:43 pm

            But what is the real source of this claim?
            With all due respect a reference to another “I remember” in the Standard is not a terribly reliable reference.
            I suppose I could claim
            “I remember when Trevor Mallard was charged with assault with intent to commit grievous bodily harm He attacked Tau Henare with a machete from what I remember …………………….”
            It wouldn’t be true but then not everything people remember is.

        • Nic the NZer 8.1.1.2
          17 August 2016 at 6:57 pm

          I think you should look at the documentary ‘In the land of plenty’ to the right of this site. This goes through the 80s and 90s describing government actions to intentionally increase unemployment (and hardship for the unemployed) with the intention of lowering wages in NZ. Its clear (if it was said or not) that parts of the RBNZ and govt believed (and maybe still believe) that above 5% is a good unemployment figure to see.

          Its absolutely shocking the extent to which this has been normalized today (and how far attitudes have changed). And its also shocking how poor an understanding of societies basis for this policy is and how far the reasoning has moved given the original causes of the seventies and early eighties inflation episodes (politically motivated OPEC price hikes).

          A pretty lucid explanation of both the economic theory (insanity) and real world outcomes of that policy is given by this documentary however. Nobody would be surprised by significant inequality, low wages and poverty being the results given the overall policy which still operates this way today.

  9. save nz 9
    17 August 2016 at 9:56 am

    Wages are now so low, you might be better off unemployed and on a benefit than actually trying to get to work and all the costs that entail.

    Even if you have a ‘good job’ at a telecoms company in Auckland, we worked out that you would only earn $60 a day after paying child care and parking in Auckland. So how do you pay for accommodation, food and bills? Many of the working poor are as poor as the beneficiaries and just as insecure for income.

    As for the so called higher incomes, again it is the same issue. There is a monstrous amount of bills to pay, from ‘voluntary’ school donations to $65 for a doctors visit without a community services card. Then there are student loans to pay back, etc

    Thanks for lowing the cost of labour and increasing the cost of essentials, National! sarc.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1
      17 August 2016 at 11:18 am

      Wages are now so low, you might be better off unemployed and on a benefit than actually trying to get to work and all the costs that entail.

      That was the complaint that the businesses had in the 1980s and which led to National cutting benefits by ~20% in 1991. Prior to then benefits were set at a value to support a viable living standard. That ethical position was thrown out so as to help employers lower wages. It hasn’t been reversed since.

      Thanks for lowing the cost of labour and increasing the cost of essentials, National! sarc.

      Labour started that in the 1980s with the introduction of neo-liberalism.

      • Leftie 9.1.1
        17 August 2016 at 12:05 pm

        What really keeps wages low is uncontrolled mass immigration. Are you implying that National would have never introduced neoliberalism that was sweeping across the world if the Lange government hadn’t of done it? So how does playing the blame game help today Draco T Bastard? Does it absolve the actions of the National government?

        • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.1
          17 August 2016 at 12:24 pm

          What really keeps wages low is uncontrolled mass immigration.

          Which is part of neo-liberalism. And I’m reasonably certain that if Labour hadn’t brought it in in the 1980s then National would have in the 1990s.

          And I’m not playing a Blame Game – just getting the history correct which is actually quite critical because, as the saying goes, Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

          • Michelle 9.1.1.1.1
            17 August 2016 at 1:04 pm

            what a load of bollocks Draco they are both to blame for neo liberalism but who will get some guts and get rid of it . Actually pnats are the main party for selling our housing stock and they always have been because the market provides yeah right !

            • Leftie 9.1.1.1.1.1
              17 August 2016 at 3:07 pm

              + 1 Michelle.

              Labour builds houses, National sells or demolishes them, and that’s been the pattern since WW2.

            • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.1.1.2
              17 August 2016 at 3:34 pm

              what a load of bollocks Draco

              In what way?

              they are both to blame for neo liberalism but who will get some guts and get rid of it .

              Well, it was certainly Labour that brought it in and National who entrenched it further but blame is possibly the incorrect word – they’ve both been advised by Treasury that it must be done.

              And neither look likely to get rid of it as they’re both still enamoured of neo-liberalism and hold to the belief that we need rich people.

    • Naki man 9.2
      17 August 2016 at 11:31 am

      “As for the so called higher incomes, again it is the same issue. There is a monstrous amount of bills to pay, from ‘voluntary’ school donations to $65 for a doctors visit without a community services card. Then there are student loans to pay back, etc

      Thanks for lowing the cost of labour and increasing the cost of essentials, National! sarc”

      How have National increased the cost of doctors visits???
      There is no need to pay more than $17.50 for a doctor in Hamilton

      • McFlock 9.2.1
        17 August 2016 at 11:56 am

        Oh, fuck off.

        I pay fuck all for the doctor simply because I was lucky enough to walk past the cheapest GP in town at the one time they had a patient opening – none of my family or friends have been able to get in. For them, $65 is routine.

        Check your priviledge, jerkoff.

        • maninthemiddle 9.2.1.1
          17 August 2016 at 4:24 pm

          If they are paying $65, then they can afford to. They should consider a privilege to get their world class healthcare so cheap.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2.1.1.1
            17 August 2016 at 4:42 pm

            🙄

          • Leftie 9.2.1.1.2
            17 August 2016 at 4:56 pm

            That’s utter bullshit Maninthemiddle, what planet are you living on?

            • maninthemiddle 9.2.1.1.2.1
              17 August 2016 at 4:57 pm

              What is? We have a world class health system. $65 (and my doctor is no-where near that) is cheap.

          • McFlock 9.2.1.1.3
            17 August 2016 at 5:16 pm

            that’s not what their mounting debt with the doctor says, fucko.

            • maninthemiddle 9.2.1.1.3.1
              17 August 2016 at 5:48 pm

              You’re $65 is bs McFlock. Your friends and family are either stupid, getting ripped off, or liars.

              • McFlock …
                17 August 2016 at 6:12 pm

                Getting ripped off by the only doctor with free space is called “supply and demand”, fucko.

                As it is, that’s the personal experience of people close to me. Call them liars if you want, I’m not overly concerned with the opinions of a degenerate narcissist with a penchant for cut&pasting conflicting sources over the course of an extended argument. Whatever.

                Once again tories claim that things are fine, and then decide that accounts of how things are not fine must be fabricated or discounted in some other way. Like discounting people who are looking for work, but not “looking” for work.

                • maninthemiddle …
                  17 August 2016 at 6:50 pm

                  “Getting ripped off by the only doctor with free space is called “supply and demand”, fucko.”

                  The problem is the available facts don’t fit your narrative. I can’t find any evidence of a doctor shortage in Hamilton, or of Hamilton doctors charging excessively. You have form, so it’s perfectly reasonable to test your ‘anecdotes’. This one is bs.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      18 August 2016 at 9:06 am

                      That’s Marlborough, not Hamilton. And the article doesn’t even mention the quantum of fees. So you still can’t verify your claims.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 August 2016 at 11:45 am

                      Love how you fixated on Hamilton as an arbitrary goalpost.

                      Springlands Health head administrator Helen Pauley said there was a small portion of the patient community that struggled to pay for medical appointments.

                      This would sometimes result in people putting off treatment and needing more intensive care when they were seen by a doctor, she said.

                      Prices vary by region, but when people need escalated care because they couldn’t afford to go to the doctor, that’s excessive charging.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      18 August 2016 at 9:53 pm

                      “Love how you fixated on Hamilton as an arbitrary goalpost.”

                      YOU responded to Naki about Hamilton. Remember??

                      “…but when people need escalated care because they couldn’t afford to go to the doctor, that’s excessive charging.”

                      Do you have any evidence this is happening? (You’re cite gave no examples).

                      The escalated care will be free under the public system, btw.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 August 2016 at 10:55 pm

                      Lol You’re such a fucking robot when you want to be.

                      I responded to Naki man bringing up some random theoretical price in Hamilton as an argument that people don’t have to pay as much as $65 to see the fucking doctor. I told him to fuck off because his comment was irrelevant to the experience of people I know. I’ve never been to Hamilton in my life. I note you fixated on the Hamilton he brought up, not on the Auckland in the comment he replied to.

                      As for my link (not “cite” – don’t use words you don’t understand) you obviously didn’t read it. The person at the start of the article “delayed a visit to the doctor because she could not afford it”. She ended up with fucking pneumonia. Oh, and two seperate healthcare providers said it happens. I guess you chose to be a moron rather than a robot when you clicked on the link.

                      Yes, secondary healthcare is 100% taxpayer funded. It also involves:
                      greater risk of complications,
                      treatment of more serious conditions,
                      more harm and suffering for the patient,
                      and is more expensive both to taxpayers and in absolute terms than primary healtchare.

                      From no point of view is the current situation sensible, efficient, or (and I’m going to use another word you won’t understand) humane.

                      night night, fucko.

                • maninthemiddle …
                  18 August 2016 at 9:07 am

                  Thanks Pat. Not one standard fee at $65. Most considerably less. McFlock’s making s^&t up.

                  • Pat …
                    18 August 2016 at 9:16 am

                    really?….dont recall mcFlock claiming a hard and fast $65 country wide, more an indicative figure which in some cases is exceeded and in others not….and you could almost double that sum in certain circumstances

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      18 August 2016 at 9:26 am

                      McFlock said that $65 was ‘routine’. Not indicative, ‘routine’. He has maintained this narrative, despite other posters calling bs on his claim.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 August 2016 at 12:56 pm

                      I said “routine” “for them”.

                      Maybe other people managed to get cheaper doctors. Maybe they live somewhere other than the locations you’re fixated on. Maybe that’s just because their kids get sick on a weekend rather than business hours.

                      You don’t know who I know, where they are, or who their doctor is. Go fuck yourself you dissembling sociopath.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      18 August 2016 at 9:39 pm

                      “I said “routine” “for them”.”

                      If so, that is entirely by choice. Or they’re stupid. Or you’re lying.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 August 2016 at 10:57 pm

                      nope. Maybe your brighter future isn’t experienced by large swathes of the population, fucko.

                  • Pat …
                    18 August 2016 at 9:44 am

                    lol….have a straw

        • Lanthanide 9.2.1.2
          17 August 2016 at 5:04 pm

          My current doctor is $44 and the place I’m looking to change to is $45.

          These seem to be pretty standard prices in Christchurch?

          • Chuck 9.2.1.2.1
            17 August 2016 at 5:11 pm

            $48 for my doctor, on the North shore of Auckland.

          • maninthemiddle 9.2.1.2.2
            17 August 2016 at 5:12 pm

            Mine’s $45, in Auckland. I’ve never heard of anyone paying $65…McFlock’s most likely confused. “A visit to the doctor will cost around $45 – $60 during the week, with an additional fee of $10 – $15 outside of normal working hours. Children under six are often free and fees for children between the ages of six and 17 are subsidised.” http://www.workingin-newzealand.com/live-and-settle/health-and-wellness/healthcare#.V7Px2ZN97Hc

            • McFlock 9.2.1.2.2.1
              17 August 2016 at 5:19 pm

              Not confused.

              I just live in the real world.

              • maninthemiddle …
                17 August 2016 at 5:39 pm

                Well, you have accepted the word of your ‘family and friends’, and then repeated it here. It sounds like bs to me. Or, being generous, a rogue number.

                • McFlock …
                  17 August 2016 at 6:04 pm

                  Be even more generous and vote left next election. Poor people in NZ need your help, not your faux generosity.

                  When was the last time your kids were sick?

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    17 August 2016 at 6:10 pm

                    “When was the last time your kids were sick?”

                    About 3 months ago.

                    “Poor people in NZ need your help, not your faux generosity.”

                    I’ll do anything I can to help. Manufactured anger at non-existent problems doesn’t help anyone, yet that seems to be all the left offer.

                    • McFlock …
                      17 August 2016 at 6:16 pm

                      So I take it you shopped around all the medical practises to find the cheapest GP possible, and made an appointment for three weeks time during business hours? Money management is important, you know.

                      “Manufactured anger at non-existent problems doesn’t help anyone, yet that seems to be all the left offer.”
                      Real anger at real problems, because the solutions are so simple if bastards like you actually acknowledged the problem.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      17 August 2016 at 6:52 pm

                      “So I take it you shopped around all the medical practises to find the cheapest GP possible, and made an appointment for three weeks time during business hours?”

                      Nah. Been with my GP for yonks. I can get to see him within 1-3 days, that’s normal around Auckland.

                      “Real anger at real problems…”

                      Nah. Faux anger at non-problems, invented by liars and assorted lefties who can’t accept we have a system that works.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      17 August 2016 at 7:57 pm

                      Faux anger at lightbulbs on the other hand, says you’re a lying hypocritical ghoul who’s happy to use homeless children as political footballs.

                    • McFlock …
                      17 August 2016 at 10:22 pm

                      So he hasn’t looked at different charges in years, but knows what’s normal in Auckland. And insists he has no evidence of a GP shortage in Hamilton, therefore there is no GP shortage.

                      Probably needs denial like that to feel ok playing actual football with poor kids.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      18 August 2016 at 9:14 am

                      “So he hasn’t looked at different charges in years…”
                      I didn’t say that, did I. I said I hadn’t shopped around for the cheapest.

                      “but knows what’s normal in Auckland…”
                      Yep, and so do others who have responded to your lies.

                      “And insists he has no evidence of a GP shortage in Hamilton, therefore there is no GP shortage.”

                      There is shortage in some rural areas. You haven’t posted any evidence about Hamilton.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 August 2016 at 12:58 pm

                      Why are you obsessed with Hamilton, fucko?

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      18 August 2016 at 9:48 pm

                      “Why are you obsessed with Hamilton, fucko?”

                      Huh? Have you not been following the thread? Naki man, and others, have been referring the Hamilton. You replied to his post about Hamilton. You really are a tosser.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 August 2016 at 11:00 pm

                      Other commenters have mentioned Auckland, or Marlborough. This isn’t a regional problem, it’s a Nactional problem.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      19 August 2016 at 10:42 pm

                      “Other commenters have mentioned Auckland, or Marlborough.”
                      You weren’t responding to those ‘other commentators’ McFlock. You were responding to Naki Man. Keep up or f^^k off.

                      “This isn’t a regional problem, it’s a Nactional problem.”

                      No, it’s clearly only a regional problem.

                      As we hear almost every day, this government has put far more money with far better outcomes into health than Labour ever did.

                    • McFlock …
                      20 August 2016 at 12:27 am

                      Other commenters have mentioned Auckland, or Marlborough.”
                      You weren’t responding to those ‘other commentators’ McFlock. You were responding to Naki Man.

                      Naki man in a thread, robot.

                      Keep up or f^^k off.

                      lol but you still comment here, and you can’t even keep uo with your own lies.

                      “This isn’t a regional problem, it’s a Nactional problem.”

                      No, it’s clearly only a regional problem.

                      Well, a region starting in Cape Reinga and ending in Bluff.

                      As we hear almost every day, this government has put far more money with far better outcomes into health than Labour ever did.

                      As you hear, in the secret transmissions from Planet Key that only you can receive…

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      20 August 2016 at 8:57 pm

                      “Naki man in a thread, robot.”
                      Naki Man in a thread you responded to.

                      “lol but you still comment here, and you can’t even keep uo with your own lies.”
                      Ah, eventually run to the same insults as OAB. You can’t handle being sown up, can you?

                      “Well, a region starting in Cape Reinga and ending in Bluff.”
                      Nope, clearly not Auckland, Hamilton….

                    • McFlock …
                      20 August 2016 at 9:16 pm

                      “Naki man in a thread, robot.”
                      Naki Man in a thread you responded to.

                      Indeed. Hu-mons respond in the context of the entire conversation, rather than throwing a run-time or syntax error if a line of code does not follow on exactly from the state of the preceding code block. Upgrade your firmware.

                      “lol but you still comment here, and you can’t even keep uo with your own lies.”
                      Ah, eventually run to the same insults as OAB. You can’t handle being sown up, can you?

                      there’s that Dunning-Kruger again.

                      If multiple people tell you the same thing, maybe they have a point.

                      “Well, a region starting in Cape Reinga and ending in Bluff.”
                      Nope, clearly not Auckland, Hamilton….

                      Actually, yes in Auckland, where 9% of the Otara GPs “considered that cost was a barrier for lung cancer patients.”

                      Read this bit:

                      Only one-quarter (24%) of GPs considered that consultation and transport costs contributed to the late presentation of lung cancer patients in general; however ~60% considered that this was a barrier for Māori and Pacific patients (Figure 3).

                      Yeah, but secondary healthcare is free. What harm can a late presentation of cancer have? /sarc

                      I won’t bother doing your homework for Hamilton, fucko.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      21 August 2016 at 11:08 am

                      ‘Indeed. Hu-mons respond in the context of the entire conversation”
                      Which referred to Hamilton. You didn’t read it, dd you?

                      “Actually, yes in Auckland, where 9% of the Otara GPs “considered that cost was a barrier for lung cancer patients.””
                      Where’s the $65? And who mentioned lung cancer patients? We’re talking about GP visits. You’re being very evasive McFlock.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 August 2016 at 3:41 pm

                      your stupidity has hurt the very soul of humanity.

                      who mentioned lung cancer patients? We’re talking about GP visits.

                      You really can’t read at all, can you?

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      21 August 2016 at 3:44 pm

                      “You really can’t read at all, can you?”

                      Yep, and your raising cancer patients is just another disgraceful attempt to deflect. You really are sick.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 August 2016 at 3:54 pm

                      Patients who delay going to the GP about their persistent cough because of cost, so their lung cancer is more progressed when it’s finally diagnosed.

                      That’s what the link said was happening in Otara.

                      You’re a degenerate moron who is too stupid to understand the harm being inflicted on people in this country. You prefer to live in denial.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      21 August 2016 at 3:59 pm

                      “Patients who delay going to the GP about their persistent cough because of cost…”

                      …shouldn’t.

                      Because there is no need with the fees most doctors charge. And you still haven’t explained your $65 figure. More McF bullshit.

                      “A visit to the doctor will cost around $45 – $60 during the week, with an additional fee of $10 – $15 outside of normal working hours.”

                      “Children under six are often free and fees for children between the ages of six and 17 are subsidised. You can usually see the doctor on the same day you make an appointment. Emergency care in a hospital is generally free, as are public hospital treatments following referral from a GP.”

                      “Specialist services and non-urgent surgery are free when you are referred by a GP.”

                      http://www.workingin-newzealand.com/live-and-settle/health-and-wellness/healthcare#.V7kndZN97Hc

                    • McFlock …
                      21 August 2016 at 4:04 pm

                      Shouldn’t. Because there is no need with the fees most doctors charge.

                      Well obviously many of the doctors in Otara disagree with you.

                      You’ve just responded to a direct survey of people on the ground who stated what was actually happening, and all you could respond with was “shouldn’t” and a catechismic repetition of your tory assumptions.

                      But it’s not like you’ll let the direct experience of people who know what they’re talking about affect your lethal delusions.

                      edit: what’s “$60 during the week” plus an additional “$15 outside normal working hours”?

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      21 August 2016 at 4:26 pm

                      “Well obviously many of the doctors in Otara disagree with you.”
                      Nope. None even quantified the amount they are charging, based on your reference.

                      “edit: what’s “$60 during the week”…”
                      The MAXIMUM amount. Still not $65, and the same care is available for $45.

                      “plus an additional “$15 outside normal working hours”?”
                      Yep. So? Do all your friends and relatives choose to go to the most expensive, and after hours primary healthcare? Based on the shit you come up with, maybe they are as stupid.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 August 2016 at 4:46 pm

                      Do all your friends and relatives choose to go to the most expensive, and after hours primary healthcare?

                      Nope.
                      But people do get sick on the weekend, fucko. Ever been to the urgent doctors? Check out their prices. Not much of a choice, either.

                      Your own link (even if it’s been updated in the last five years) says that for some people in some areas $65 might well be routine.

                      My links have all shown that whatever the specific cost in that situation, for some people it’s enough to delay going to the doctor. The lung cancer GP survey shows that your trite ‘secondary healthcare is free’ attitude can have lethal consequences for people you obviously don’t give a shit about.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      22 August 2016 at 12:24 pm

                      “But people do get sick on the weekend, fucko.”
                      Yep, but that’s not the norm. And if they are low income, they qualify for a CSC.

                      “Your own link (even if it’s been updated in the last five years) says that for some people in some areas $65 might well be routine.”
                      Nope, it says that you can pay from $45. That’s the norm.

                      “My links have all shown that whatever the specific cost in that situation, for some people it’s enough to delay going to the doctor. ”
                      None of you’re links have quoted actual numbers. Don;t you think that making claims about affordability without declaring the numbers is a bit disingenuous? No, you wouldn’t.

                    • McFlock …
                      22 August 2016 at 12:50 pm

                      “But people do get sick on the weekend, fucko.”
                      Yep, but that’s not the norm. And if they are low income, they qualify for a CSC.

                      It is actually normal for a hu-mon to get sick on the weekend, robot. About 2/7ths of the time, in fact.

                      “Your own link (even if it’s been updated in the last five years) says that for some people in some areas $65 might well be routine.”
                      Nope, it says that you can pay from $45. That’s the norm.

                      No, that’s the minimum some random person in the country might be able to pay during business hours and if they’re already registered with that GP. It’s perfectly possible that someone somewhere else in the country has to pay $60 or more, according to your link.

                      “My links have all shown that whatever the specific cost in that situation, for some people it’s enough to delay going to the doctor. ”
                      None of you’re links have quoted actual numbers. Don;t you think that making claims about affordability without declaring the numbers is a bit disingenuous? No, you wouldn’t.

                      Your link quoted the actual numbers that demonstrated it was perfectly possible for a family somewhere in NZ to be routinely charged $65 if they go to the doctor. Hell, between you and Naki man you’ve demonstrated that it’s possible for GP charges to vary wildly in the same town, let alone between the towns with only one GP or in different regions.

                      My links demonstrated that whatever the specific costs, GP costs were a factor in many people delaying treatment for life-threatening conditions. Your links merely demonstrated that it’s possible that my comment about my friends’ medical costs was perfectly plausible in this brighter future.

                      I don’t expect an apology for calling me a liar, though – that would involve you checking in with reality for once.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      22 August 2016 at 1:35 pm

                      “It is actually normal for a hu-mon to get sick on the weekend, robot. About 2/7ths of the time, in fact.”
                      So by your own data, 5/7ths of the time people can pay $45. Where does your $65 come from then?

                      “No, that’s the minimum…”
                      Then it can be the norm. Shop around.

                      “Your link quoted the actual numbers that demonstrated it was perfectly possible for a family somewhere in NZ to be routinely charged $65 if they go to the doctor.”
                      Perfectly possible. Not essential.

                      “Hell, between you and Naki man you’ve demonstrated that it’s possible for GP charges to vary wildly in the same town, let alone between the towns with only one GP or in different regions.”
                      So? That’s how the market works. Supply and demand.

                      “My links demonstrated that whatever the specific costs, GP costs were a factor in many people delaying treatment for life-threatening conditions.”
                      Nope, they didn’t. Becasue they contained no hard data. They were opinion pieces.

                    • McFlock …
                      22 August 2016 at 2:01 pm

                      “It is actually normal for a hu-mon to get sick on the weekend, robot. About 2/7ths of the time, in fact.”
                      So by your own data, 5/7ths of the time people can pay $45. Where does your $65 come from then?

                      lol
                      No, the existence of $45 somewhere in the country does not mean that $45 is available everywhere in the country.
                      And secondly, 30% of the time is still pretty fucking routine.

                      “No, that’s the minimum…”
                      Then it can be the norm. Shop around.

                      Oh bullshit. Even if you were in a town or region with cheaper doctors, you’d still have to pray they had a patient opening.

                      “Your link quoted the actual numbers that demonstrated it was perfectly possible for a family somewhere in NZ to be routinely charged $65 if they go to the doctor.”
                      Perfectly possible. Not essential.

                      How the fuck would you know what is “essential” everywhere in the country? You don’t. You’re fucking imagining things.

                      “Hell, between you and Naki man you’ve demonstrated that it’s possible for GP charges to vary wildly in the same town, let alone between the towns with only one GP or in different regions.”
                      So? That’s how the market works. Supply and demand.

                      And them who can’t pay delay and die.

                      “My links demonstrated that whatever the specific costs, GP costs were a factor in many people delaying treatment for life-threatening conditions.”
                      Nope, they didn’t. Becasue they contained no hard data. They were opinion pieces.

                      So, basically, once again either you didn’t read any of the links, or you didn’t understand them, or you’re intentionally lying.

                    • miravox …
                      22 August 2016 at 2:21 pm

                      “My links demonstrated that whatever the specific costs, GP costs were a factor in many people delaying treatment for life-threatening conditions.”
                      Nope, they didn’t. Becasue they contained no hard data. They were opinion pieces.

                      Hard data (It’s good enough or the MoH, seeing as it’s their survey, so..)

                      http://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/annual-update-key-results-2014-15-nzhs-dec15-1.pdf

                      Fourteen percent of adults reported not visiting a GP due to cost. Rates of not visiting a GP due to cost varied by sex, age, ethnic group and neighbourhood deprivation, as follows.

                      • Women were almost twice as likely as men to not visit a GP due to cost, after adjusting for age differences (the rates were 17% and 10% respectively).
                      • Unmet need for GP visits due to cost peaked among those aged 25–44 years, at about one in five adults. Cost was much less likely to be a barrier for adults aged 65 years and over: less
                      than 10% had experienced unmet need for this reason.
                      • One in five Pacific and Māori adults (20%) had not visited a GP due to cost. Pacific and Māori adults were 1.4 times as likely as non-Pacific and non-Māori adults respectively to not visit a
                      GP due to cost, after adjusting for age and sex differences. Asian adults had the lowest rate of not visiting a GP due to cost: one in nine (11%).
                      • Eighteen percent of adults living in the most socioeconomically deprived areas had not visited a GP due to cost. These adults were 2.5 times as likely as those living in the least
                      deprived areas to not visit a GP due to cost, after adjusting for age, sex and ethnic differences.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      22 August 2016 at 6:17 pm

                      “No, the existence of $45 somewhere in the country does not mean that $45 is available everywhere in the country.”

                      Yep, it’s all over NZ. Unlike your fictional $65.

                      “How the fuck would you know what is “essential” everywhere in the country?”

                      How would you? I’ve quoted hard data, not my relatives.

                      “So, basically, once again either you didn’t read any of the links, or you didn’t understand them, or you’re intentionally lying.”

                      You’re links were opinion pieces. They contained no numbers on costs…you’re just running.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      22 August 2016 at 6:22 pm

                      “Fourteen percent of adults reported not visiting a GP due to cost. ”

                      So 86% could readily afford a GP visit. That is a remarkable statistic, thank you. The 14% I find curious. Do they not understand how a CSC works?

                    • McFlock …
                      22 August 2016 at 6:22 pm

                      Yep, it’s all over NZ. Unlike your fictional $65.

                      you just made that up.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      22 August 2016 at 6:26 pm

                      “you just made that up.”

                      Nope. You claimed $65 was some kind of common cost. You lied.

                    • McFlock …
                      22 August 2016 at 6:30 pm

                      “How the fuck would you know what is “essential” everywhere in the country?”

                      How would you? I’ve quoted hard data, not my relatives.

                      I know my friends’ situations. I also quoted news reports and research regarding the situation in DHBs other than my own.
                      You simply took a bracket of $45-60 and assumed everyone in the country was close to, and enrolled with, a doctor who charged $45 or less, and the patients never got sick outside of business hours.

                      “So, basically, once again either you didn’t read any of the links, or you didn’t understand them, or you’re intentionally lying.”

                      You’re links were opinion pieces. They contained no numbers on costs…you’re just running.

                      Most of them were news reports, not opinion pieces. There is a difference. And you supplied the numbers, albeit obviously unwittingly. I supplied the hard data that demonstrated that your numbers were responsible for delayed treatment for things like lung cancer.

                    • McFlock …
                      22 August 2016 at 6:33 pm

                      “you just made that up.”

                      Nope. You claimed $65 was some kind of common cost. You lied

                      No, I said it was routinely paid by people I know in my neck of the woods. Your figures support that this was a reasonable statement for me to make without supplying itemised receipts as proof, as it is within the range of charges listed in your link. Thankyou for your assistance.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      22 August 2016 at 6:33 pm

                      “I know my friends’ situations. I also quoted news reports and research regarding the situation in DHBs other than my own.”

                      So all anecdotal. No hard data whatsoever. Thanks for clarifying.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      22 August 2016 at 6:36 pm

                      “No, I said it was routinely paid by people I know in my neck of the woods. ”

                      And I’ve told you they pay that by choice, unless your ‘neck of the woods’ is one of a very few places where there are shortages.

                    • McFlock …
                      22 August 2016 at 6:44 pm

                      So all anecdotal. No hard data whatsoever. Thanks for clarifying.

                      My anecdote about my friends was anecdotal, yes. I never pretended otherwise.

                      The news reports demonstrated the existence of the problem. And the research was as methodologically valid as one could get without running an experiment for which one would certainly have difficulty obtaining ethical approval.

                      But you’re just trying to get into a semantic argument to avoid admitting that people are being denied prompt primary care because of the cost barrier.

                    • McFlock …
                      22 August 2016 at 6:50 pm

                      And I’ve told you they pay that by choice, unless your ‘neck of the woods’ is one of a very few places where there are shortages.

                      Yes, I know you’ve tried to tell me that what is in front of my face is not really there. But just because you choose to see only what’s on planet key, it doesn’t make what is in front of me invisible. It just makes you a creep for trying.

                      And in the real world GP shortages don’t seem to be quite as rare as you imagine, either. That’s probably related to the prohibitive cost somehow…

                    • miravox …
                      22 August 2016 at 8:10 pm

                      “The 14% I find curious”

                      Curious yet blinkered. An unfortunate combination.

                    • miravox …
                      22 August 2016 at 8:19 pm

                      “… very few places where there are shortages”

                      Where immigrating doctors are likely to find a job due to GP shortages

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      23 August 2016 at 11:15 am

                      “My anecdote about my friends was anecdotal, yes.”
                      And yet you continue to quote the $65 as definitive?

                      “The news reports demonstrated the existence of the problem.”
                      Nope, it made claims that were themselves based on anecdote.

                      “But you’re just trying to get into a semantic argument to avoid admitting that people are being denied prompt primary care because of the cost barrier.”
                      Nope, becasue they aren’t. If people aren’t going to the doctor that is their choice.

                      “Yes, I know you’ve tried to tell me that what is in front of my face is not really there.”
                      It’s in your imagination. Only.

                      “And in the real world GP shortages don’t seem to be quite as rare as you imagine, either. That’s probably related to the prohibitive cost somehow…”
                      They are rare. But that isn’t the point. GP costs in NZ are not prohibitive. And for the less well off, are heavily subsidised.

                      “Children and some people who need to visit their doctor often can get free or subsidised visits.”
                      https://www.govt.nz/browse/health-system/gps-and-prescriptions/paying-for-doctors-visits/

                      You’re trying to paint an utterly deceitful picture.

                    • McFlock …
                      23 August 2016 at 12:36 pm

                      “My anecdote about my friends was anecdotal, yes.”
                      And yet you continue to quote the $65 as definitive?

                      as a routine cost of healthcare for my friends.

                      “The news reports demonstrated the existence of the problem.”
                      Nope, it made claims that were themselves based on anecdote.

                      That still demonstrates that there was a problem for those people.

                      “But you’re just trying to get into a semantic argument to avoid admitting that people are being denied prompt primary care because of the cost barrier.”
                      Nope, becasue they aren’t. If people aren’t going to the doctor that is their choice.

                      If people aren’t going to the doctor because it’s to expensive then that’s a cost-related denial of care.

                      I know you tories often confuse “being broke” with “choosing not to eat”, but that’s no more true than “having no legs” means “choosing not to run”.

                      “And in the real world GP shortages don’t seem to be quite as rare as you imagine, either. That’s probably related to the prohibitive cost somehow…”
                      They are rare. But that isn’t the point. GP costs in NZ are not prohibitive.

                      Yes they are, in that they prohibit some people from receiving prompt medical attention. As has been repeatedly demonstrated.

                      “Children and some people who need to visit their doctor often can get free or subsidised visits.”
                      https://www.govt.nz/browse/health-system/gps-and-prescriptions/paying-for-doctors-visits/

                      You’re trying to paint an utterly deceitful picture.

                      I’m not the one who confuses “can often” with “always free”.

                      But stop bleating, anyway. You outed yourself when you claimed that people who couldn’t afford to go to the doctor “chose” to delay medical care. You’re perfectly happy for poor people to die, and you justify it on the grounds that they chose to be poor.

                      Feel that little nagging, scratching sensation at the back of your neck? That’s one of two things: it’s either the growing realisation that you really are a fucking moron; or it’s the gnawing reminder that if you have to pretend to be so intensely stupid to defend such a contemptable position, then you might just be missing out on some essential part of the human experience. Hu-mons call that part “empathy”.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      23 August 2016 at 1:07 pm

                      “as a routine cost of healthcare for my friends.”
                      Becasue they choose to pay it, or they’re stupid.

                      “That still demonstrates that there was a problem for those people.”
                      Unsubstantiated claims don’t demonstrate anything.

                      “If people aren’t going to the doctor because it’s to expensive then that’s a cost-related denial of care.”
                      You still haven’t given a single piece of evidence that people are faced with that problem. And you’re forgetting the extension of free GP visits by THIS government, and the CSC.

                      “Yes they are, in that they prohibit some people from receiving prompt medical attention. As has been repeatedly demonstrated.”
                      Ah, you make a claim, fail to prove it, then claim to have proven it. There is NO cost prohibition to people in need attending GP in NZ. NONE.

                      “I’m not the one who confuses “can often” with “always free”.”
                      ?? You’re the one who claims $65 to visit a doctor is normal.

                      “But stop bleating, anyway. You outed yourself when you claimed that people who couldn’t afford to go to the doctor “chose” to delay medical care. ”
                      Nope, never said that. I said there is simply no reason why people cannot afford to visit a doctor in NZ.

                      “Feel that little nagging, scratching sensation at the back of your neck?”
                      Nope. I do, however, smell the tyres burning as you scramble rapidly backwards from most of the claims you’ve made here.

                    • McFlock …
                      23 August 2016 at 1:27 pm

                      “as a routine cost of healthcare for my friends.”
                      Becasue they choose to pay it, or they’re stupid.

                      You have no idea what GPs are available in my area or the other circumstances of my friends. And yet you still make claims about them, because you’re an idiot.

                      “That still demonstrates that there was a problem for those people.”
                      Unsubstantiated claims don’t demonstrate anything.

                      He says in an unsubstantiated claim. So you’re a hypocrite as well as an idiot.

                      “If people aren’t going to the doctor because it’s to expensive then that’s a cost-related denial of care.”
                      You still haven’t given a single piece of evidence that people are faced with that problem. And you’re forgetting the extension of free GP visits by THIS government, and the CSC.

                      So your blinkers think a couple of news articles and a survey of GPs don’t count as “evidence”. You’re a hypocritical, blinkered idiot.

                      “Yes they are, in that they prohibit some people from receiving prompt medical attention. As has been repeatedly demonstrated.”
                      Ah, you make a claim, fail to prove it, then claim to have proven it. There is NO cost prohibition to people in need attending GP in NZ. NONE.

                      Hypocritical, blinkered idiot repeats claim that differs from reality. So you’re a delusional, hypocritical, blinkered idiot.

                      “I’m not the one who confuses “can often” with “always free”.”
                      ?? You’re the one who claims $65 to visit a doctor is normal.

                      Delusional, hypocritical, blinkered idiot attempts to deflect attention from own error by misrepresenting other person’s position. So you’re a dissembling, delusional, hypocritical, blinkered idiot.

                      “But stop bleating, anyway. You outed yourself when you claimed that people who couldn’t afford to go to the doctor “chose” to delay medical care. ”
                      Nope, never said that. I said there is simply no reason why people cannot afford to visit a doctor in NZ.

                      Dissembling, delusional, hypocritical, blinkered idiot reiterated delusional status.

                      “Feel that little nagging, scratching sensation at the back of your neck?”
                      Nope. I do, however, smell the tyres burning as you scramble rapidly backwards from most of the claims you’ve made here.

                      Dissembling, doubly-delusional, hypocritical, blinkered idiot remains convinced of own superiority, despite overwhelming evidence to contrary.

                      You’re a Dunning-Kruger, dissembling, delusional, hypocritical, blinkered idiot . Are you even in secondary school yet?

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    24 August 2016 at 9:30 am

                    “You have no idea what GPs are available in my area or the other circumstances of my friends.”
                    You have admitted to using anecdotal evidence from you’re friends and relatives to justify the $65. Many other writers here have debunked you.

                    “He says in an unsubstantiated claim. ”
                    The claim was unsubstantiated, so my claim is substantiated. You don’t understand logic, do you?

                    You’re losing it McFlock. Back to kindergarten my friend.

                    • McFlock …
                      24 August 2016 at 1:08 pm

                      Anecdotal evidence about my friends is evidence about my friends, Dunning-Kruger, dissembling, delusional, hypocritical, blinkered idiot. Nobody has “debunked” that, even your own link said it was perfectly possible for charges, somewhere in the country, to be in that ballpark during business hours, let alone requiring a doctor after hours or on the weekend.

                      As for your idea of logic, you provided no substantiation for your claim that claims without substantiation don’t demonstrate anything. Paradoxically, if your claim were true then your claim itself cannot demonstrate anything about any other claim.

                      You made a nonsense claim which was also irrelevant, given that my own claim was substantiated as being plausible (at the very least) by your own links to healthcare prices, you Dunning-Kruger, dissembling, delusional, hypocritical, blinkered idiot.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      24 August 2016 at 1:24 pm

                      “Anecdotal evidence about my friends is evidence about my friends,”

                      Actually it’s barely that, becasue it could be all lies. The truth is you have been challenged on the $65 number and you have failed to provide any evidence that that is either 1. common or 2. necessary.

                      “As for your idea of logic, you provided no substantiation for your claim that claims without substantiation don’t demonstrate anything.”
                      I didn’t claim that. I said that claims without substantiation are unsubstantiated. That is self evident.

                    • McFlock …
                      24 August 2016 at 1:37 pm

                      “Anecdotal evidence about my friends is evidence about my friends,”

                      Actually it’s barely that, becasue it could be all lies. The truth is you have been challenged on the $65 number and you have failed to provide any evidence that that is either 1. common or 2. necessary.

                      Nope. I never said common. Merely routine, in their circumstances. Stop lying. And I won’t identify them or myself, so you’ll never get definitive proof (or stalking material). However, your own link said that my description was plausible. And thanks for admitting that it’s evidence, even if “barely”. Always nice to toe the line.

                      “As for your idea of logic, you provided no substantiation for your claim that claims without substantiation don’t demonstrate anything.”
                      I didn’t claim that. I said that claims without substantiation are unsubstantiated. That is self evident.

                      Unsubstantiated claims don’t demonstrate anything.

                      That is exactly what you wrote, you liar. That’s a claim. You provided no substantiation for that claim. Therefore your claim doesn’t demonstrate anything. MitM, the Dunning-Kruger, dissembling, delusional, hypocritical, blinkered idiot.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      24 August 2016 at 1:46 pm

                      “Nope. I never said common. Merely routine, in their circumstances.”
                      Routine means ‘customary’ or ‘regular’. You’re getting desperate MF. If your friends are really paying $65, they are almost certainly doing so by choice.

                      “That is exactly what you wrote, you liar.”
                      I know I wrote that. I wrote it, I should know. But that’s not what you were referring to. The post you were replying to read “The claim was unsubstantiated, so my claim is substantiated.” Do you always resort to dishonesty when losing?

                    • McFlock …
                      24 August 2016 at 2:04 pm

                      Oh shit, I just realised that you have a different success metric to a normal human. See, when a normal human thinks they’re winning a debate, it’s because of logical points, understanding the issues, understanding basic English, that sort of thing.

                      With you, as long as people delay primary medical attention and maybe even die so that your corrupt heros can continue to profiteer and keep tax cuts, you’re doing your job well.

                      Anyway, Dunning-Kruger, dissembling, delusional, hypocritical, blinkered idiot, I’ve got to get back to my day job. As long as you think that poor people “choose” to delay their medical care because they want to pay the most expensive primary healthcare costs possible, and maybe die because of it, you’ll always have a sign that you’ve not yet figured out what it is to be a fully-functioning human being. Something in you is broken.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      24 August 2016 at 5:26 pm

                      ” I just realised that you have a different success metric to a normal human.”

                      Nope. I have submitted evidence from independent sources. You have posted heresay from your mates. Oh and your hysterical rantings about profiteering and tax cuts just makes your hole even bigger.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 August 2016 at 11:12 am

                      I have submitted evidence from independent sources. You have posted heresay from your mates.

                      lol
                      You posted a link to a “come live in NZ”-type website.
                      I posted links to news articles describing the problem across the country, and actual research. As well as mentioning the direct experience of my mates. And you still think you’ve run rings around me.

                      You’re a Dunning-Kruger, dissembling, delusional, hypocritical, blinkered idiot .

                • Stuart Munro …
                  18 August 2016 at 12:48 pm

                  Get over yourself you worthless extreme right tr0ll:

                  This post is about the government lying about unemployment stats – not about how you went to see a doctor one time.

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    18 August 2016 at 9:50 pm

                    Wrong. This post is about where the participants take it.

                    Oh, and do you have any evidence that anyone lied about the stats? All that is happening is people are commenting on independent data collected according to international conventions. Sore loser?

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      18 August 2016 at 11:09 pm

                      I realise RWNJ trolls are preternaturally stupid but you could get a clue if you read the head article.

                      MiM, not even you believe the shit you spout. The government you prostitute your feeble talents to serve isn’t worth the price of the bullet to out them out of their misery. Now, imagine what that makes you worth 😉

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      19 August 2016 at 10:43 pm

                      I repeat. Do you have any evidence that anyone lied about the stats?

                      Or is this another in my list of Stuart Munro cluster f^&ks?

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      21 August 2016 at 4:13 pm

                      Assuming your brutish RWNJ ignorance is levened by even a smattering of statistical competence – if no jobs are taken up, how can a half point revision of the unemployment rate be anything but a lie?

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      21 August 2016 at 4:22 pm

                      “…if no jobs are taken up, how can a half point revision of the unemployment rate be anything but a lie?”

                      How do you know no jobs are taken up?

                      I ask again. Where is your evidence anyone lid about the stats? You said “This post is about the government lying about unemployment stats”. Where is your evidence? Or is this just another slur you cannot substantiate?

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      21 August 2016 at 4:32 pm

                      Making assertions out of whole cloth gets you nowhere MIM.

                      Stats redefined unemployment.

                      How about you show me the jobs you lying turd?

                      It’s your vermin that are in power – the onus of doing a job to our satisfaction lies on them.

                      Nothing their ‘Mouth of Sauron’ publicists like you do is shifting the blame.

                      Tell us another one about average medians you pathetic lying weasel.

                    • locus …
                      21 August 2016 at 9:27 pm

                      you know – maninthemiddle – every single comment that you’ve made on thestandard has been thoroughly and intelligently demolished by people whose knowledge and ability to research facts are clearly demonstrated

                      you on the other hand frequently resort to presenting your own ideology and opinion as fact

                      on a personal note i suspect that the unsupported statements you make and the derogatory and personal remarks you resort to when faced with views you disagree with, say a lot about your ability to have an open mind……

                      ….you should consider changing your handle to #maninamuddle#

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      22 August 2016 at 11:58 am

                      “Stats redefined unemployment.”

                      So, no-one lied then? Another lie you told.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      22 August 2016 at 11:59 am

                      “you know – maninthemiddle – every single comment that you’ve made on thestandard has been thoroughly and intelligently demolished by people whose knowledge and ability to research facts are clearly demonstrated”

                      hahahaha. cheerleader, doff your hat.

                • maninthemiddle …
                  23 August 2016 at 11:19 am

                  “Curious yet blinkered. An unfortunate combination.”

                  Here, I assist by spelling it out for you. The 14% most likely qualify for free or heavily subsidised care. Got it now?

                  :Where immigrating doctors are likely to find a job due to GP shortages”
                  Exactly. Which will increase supply and hold or even reduce costs. The market works!

            • mikes 9.2.1.2.2.2
              17 August 2016 at 9:34 pm

              My last visit to the doctors was $73. It is $73 during normal hours and $83 after hours at Botany Road East Care.

              http://www.afterhoursnetwork.co.nz/Botany-Howick/

            • framu 9.2.1.2.2.3
              18 August 2016 at 12:27 pm

              ” I’ve never heard of anyone paying $65…McFlock’s most likely confused. ”

              no, your just refusing to accept what others say, again

              if you happen to go to a white cross center it can be $90 and up, especially if its an after hours emergency

              theres a wide range of prices – especially if you’re not on a GPs books

              • maninthemiddle …
                18 August 2016 at 9:42 pm

                “no, your just refusing to accept what others say, again”

                Oh what I’m seeing here is most posters refuting McFlock’s bs. I provided a link with very clear guidelines that showed the rates are far less than MF claims.

                “if you happen to go to a white cross center it can be $90 and up, especially if its an after hours emergency”

                White Cross is for emergencies, accidents etc. They are not for primary healthcare. That’s why they are more expensive.

                • framu …
                  22 August 2016 at 12:13 pm

                  well no shit tough guy

                  the point is white cross do GP visits and thats what they charge

                  maybe you could stop throwing your weight around for a change?

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    22 August 2016 at 1:38 pm

                    “…the point is white cross do GP visits and thats what they charge”

                    If anyone is going to a White Cross for a ‘GP’ visit, they deserve to pay what they are charged.

                    http://www.whitecross.co.nz/

                    “White Cross Healthcare is New Zealand’s largest provider of Accident and Urgent Medical Services. We also provide GP Services at our Glenfield, Lunn Ave and New Lynn clincs.”

                    So they actually only promote GP services at three of their clinics.

        • infused 9.2.1.3
          17 August 2016 at 5:36 pm

          $65 lol. Get real. I’ve never paid more than $30 odd. Time for a new gp.

        • Naki man 9.2.1.4
          17 August 2016 at 7:25 pm

          McFlock
          Do you live in Hamilton fuckwit???
          There are four large medical centres that i know of, who anyone can go to with probably about twenty doctors. The price is $17.50.
          Next time get your facts right before making a dick of yourself

          • whispering kate 9.2.1.4.1
            17 August 2016 at 8:41 pm

            Cannot believe that but if you say so, wish there was something like that on the Shore in Auckland, we pay $45 and we are senior citizens, people under 65 pay more. Any local surgery like excising suspicious sun spots etc can be over $100.

            • Naki man 9.2.1.4.1.1
              17 August 2016 at 8:59 pm

              whispering kate

              Here, check it out for yourself. There are five centres in Hamilton and one in Huntley.

              http://www.tuimedical.co.nz/

              • miravox …
                17 August 2016 at 10:25 pm

                If you’re enrolled standard prices range $45-$55 most places.

                People who are not enrolled e.g. new patients or living in an are when the lists are oversubscribed so can’t enroll premium on that. So too will people who require a slightly longer consultation or require extra services.

                • miravox …
                  17 August 2016 at 10:38 pm

                  Oops Edit: New patients, or those living in an area when the lists are oversubscribed so can’t enrol pay a premium on the listed fee.

          • McFlock 9.2.1.4.2
            17 August 2016 at 10:36 pm

            no I don’t.

            My own GP is cheap, to me. They turn away patients every day, though – those folk have to go to the more expensive doctors. So the cost of a GP visit for someone isn’t necessarily the cheapest example you can google in three minutes. Even if being a prick with a slide rule lets you think that the poor deserve what they [don’t] get.

      • maninthemiddle 9.2.2
        17 August 2016 at 4:20 pm

        “How have National increased the cost of doctors visits???”

        You’re right, they haven’t. In fact doctors visits are now free for under 13’s. For others, doctors set their fees, not the government. Then there is the HUHC, for high users of doctors visits, and the CSC for those on lower incomes. The system is heavily skewed to assist people with low incomes and ongoing health issues, and that’s the way it should be.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2.2.1
          17 August 2016 at 4:25 pm

          …which is why a WoF for housing is not only essential in strictly ethical terms, it’s a cost saver too.

        • Leftie 9.2.2.2
          17 August 2016 at 4:57 pm

          “The system is heavily skewed to assist people with low incomes and ongoing health issues”
          That’s another lie you told right there Maninthermiddle.

          • maninthemiddle 9.2.2.2.1
            17 August 2016 at 5:09 pm

            Let me explain why you are wrong.

            1. Higher income earners pay more tax than lower income earners. Part of that tax differential is used to subsidise low income earners medical bills.
            2. Higher income earners take out private medical insurance, which they use to pay for elements of their medical care. They also pay tax that covers their medical care from the public system, tax that is subsequently used for lower income earners health costs.
            3. There is little or no chance of a higher income earner enjoying a doctor discount. By contrast, doctors frequently offer discounts to low income earners. Those same doctors recoup those discounts from high income earners.

            So you see, it’s clear,our system is skewed against those on high incomes.

            • Colonial Viper 9.2.2.2.1.1
              17 August 2016 at 6:51 pm

              if you want low income earners to pay more tax, give them more disposable income.

              Its very easy.

              And if the top 5% feel so hard done by, lets see how many of them want to swap out of their financial position and go to a lower income.

              You be the first to volunteer, right?

        • miravox 9.2.2.3
          17 August 2016 at 10:35 pm

          “The system is heavily skewed to assist people with low incomes and ongoing health issues,”

          I agree prices for primary care are reduced for low income people and those with high health needs, and we can thank Annette King and the 2001 Primary Health Care Strategy for that.

          However, the ‘system’ isn’t skewed towards low income earners. Especially for low income with high health needs. What high income and private health insurance gets you is priority. They are seeing the same consultants and have the same issues as low income people. But there’s no waiting list to languish on for these people. Similarly if you require continuing outpatient care you’ll find your appointments are a lot more timely with your private insurance than in the public health system, so being richer can prevent your condition deteriorating as quickly as those on lower incomes.

          • maninthemiddle 9.2.2.3.1
            18 August 2016 at 9:04 am

            “However, the ‘system’ isn’t skewed towards low income earners. Especially for low income with high health needs.”

            Well, yes it is, because they are subsidised by higher income earners.

            “What high income and private health insurance gets you is priority. ”

            Only to private health care, which those people are paying for, so that’s entirely appropriate. And those same people are paying twice for the privilege, once in their taxes, again in their medical insurance premiums.

            • miravox 9.2.2.3.1.1
              19 August 2016 at 3:19 am

              Aside from the general redistribution effects of tax and with the exception of GP care for community card holders, one of the several primary care exceptions, which I’ve mentioned – yeah-nah .

              Wealthy people can see exactly the same consultant in the public sector. They choose to pay, either through insurance or cash, to see the consultant earlier. This is discretionary spending.

              It’s not that people with private health insurance don’t need the public service infrastructure, they do. If wealthy people have a critical illness or emergency they’ll be calling on the services of the public sector quick smart. The private sector is not set up to cope with those needs. Due to the very high costs of these emergency and critical care services, and (hopefully) infrequent use by any one individual, pooling and resources makes sense. So they’re not paying for use twice for healthcare, they’re paying for the surety of having the public health infrastructure available when they need it, even if they choose not to use that infrastructure for non-urgent care.

              The tax argument, rather than a subsidy for low income people (and there is nothing wrong with that, if it were the case) could go something like – the more wealthy people go private, the more likely consultants will spend fewer hours in the public sector, they may also not be fully utilising their time and very expensive education by working more hours on less problematic illnesses in the private sector.

              Low income people are paying forgoing care and have prolonged illness for the wealthy to have the privilege of having more timely consultations. Low income earners would be better off if there was no private health sector at all.

              Those taxes the private patients pay can be considered payment for consultant resources that would otherwise be utilised in the public sector to reduce unmet need. But don’t mind me. Let’s go for the Australian research:

              Every patient treated privately tends to consume human resources that could otherwise be utilised in the public system. Indeed, evidence suggests that for any specialty, as the proportion of surgeries performed privately increases so does the wait list in the public sector.

              And because of this, rather than subsidising private care

              … the optimal subsidy [that private health should receive] may actually be negative (i.e private health insurance should be taxed)

              • Halfcrow …
                19 August 2016 at 7:00 am

                +1

              • Nic the NZer …
                19 August 2016 at 8:17 am

                This is a truely insiteful comment, both the comment and quoted statements. The basis can be more generally understood as, the purpose of taxation is not to collect revenue (maybe allowing the public sector compete for resources on price) but to make those resources unemployed (in this case consultants and medical staff) allowing the public sector to purchase them for public purpose. This is the kind of insight through which real economic problems can be resolved with (in this case making medical practice focus on the most needy cases rather than the highest bidding).

              • Colonial Viper …
                19 August 2016 at 8:21 am

                And by the way, if someone’s private healthcare surgery goes badly wrong, the resulting very sick patient then gets dumped on the doorstep of the public healthcare system to fix.

                The private system leaves all its big expensive mistakes at the door of the public health system.

              • maninthemiddle …
                19 August 2016 at 10:45 pm

                “Aside from the general redistribution effects of tax and with the exception of GP care for community card holders, one of the several primary care exceptions, which I’ve mentioned…”

                You’v pretty much shot your own argument down in flames there old boy. There is no ‘aside from’. These are precisely the redistributive impacts I refer to. The rest of your post is utter bs.

                • miravox …
                  20 August 2016 at 12:04 am

                  “You’v pretty much shot your own argument down in flames”
                  Really?

                  You said:

                  The system is heavily skewed to assist people with low incomes and ongoing health issues, and that’s the way it should be.

                  [my bold]
                  I agree that GP subsidies are designed to assist people of with low incomes, (and also young, pregnant, old people – a proportion of whom are wealthy) to obtain affordable primary care. There is no argument there* – except that maybe the assistance is not enough.

                  However taxation was your point 1.

                  In point 2 your argument was (I paraphrase) rich people, out of the kindness of their hearts taking out private insurance thereby generously funding the public health system through taxes for a health system they wouldn’t use.

                  Oh ok… I’ll quote “Higher income earners take out private medical insurance, which they use to pay for elements of their medical care. They also pay tax that covers their medical care from the public system, tax that is subsequently used for lower income earners health costs.”.

                  In terms of having low incomes and ongoing health issues, which implies services beyond a 15 minute GP visit, I described how the system is not ‘heavily skewed’ to assist low income people.

                  The private medical insurance argument is false. And that is the argument that I addressed, after stating I agreed with point 1.

                  If rich people wanted to generously assist low income people with their health, they would decline to use private insurers. Then there would not be a two-tier health system and low income people would be treated sooner, allowing them to go on with their lives (including earning money – then they can pay more tax, just sayin’).

                  The downside for wealthy people is that they might have to wait longer as waiting times would be more equitable and based on need, not how much they can pay. How much is that wait worth?

                  Btw your Point 3., is barely worth addressing, but – It would be highly unlikely for GPs to transfer costs between patients (published fee schedules indicate that is the case). Customer pressure on private insurers would lead to them stamping down on that kind of behaviour, I suspect. It may also break subsidy agreements with health funders. But if they did transfer charges that has nothing to do with tax – the (taxpayer-funded) subsidy to the GP remains the same.

                  * A point I didn’t make though was that that people pay general taxation, not specific taxation – who knows where the tax of the wealthy goes, maybe it’s for holiday highways that poor people will never use, not health funding at all.

                  • Nic the NZer …
                    20 August 2016 at 6:26 pm

                    Another argument you didn’t make is that taxation doesn’t fully fund the govt anyway (nor should it). The extra spending being the deficit. As my comment above indicates taxation doesn’t raise revenue its about making real resources available for the govt to buy for public purpose (such as health care for people).

                    The govts taxation and spending prioraties indicate their preferences for how the real resources of the economy are used for that purpose. This includes providing a good standard of healthcare sooner to those in need of it (or not as the case may be). But since the govt creates the primary medium of spending in NZ it has no spending constraint in that medium and no need to collect it to fund its spending.

                    • miravox …
                      20 August 2016 at 7:56 pm

                      “Taxation … [is] about making real resources available for the govt to buy for public purpose (such as health care for people)”

                      ^^ This.

                      And this feeds into the reasons why running a private health system alongside the public system negatively affects people using the public system.

                      The government priority with regard to improving waiting for public healthcare is to make the public sector do less with more.

                      It’s spin that the private sector ‘helps’ reduce pressure on the public sector. It actually increases pressure by siphoning resources – doctors whose training was largely funded by the public in the first place.

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    20 August 2016 at 8:54 pm

                    “However taxation was your point 1.”
                    Only numerically. They are all equally valid.

                    “In point 2 your argument was (I paraphrase) rich people, out of the kindness of their hearts taking out private insurance thereby generously funding the public health system through taxes for a health system they wouldn’t use.”
                    Nope. Health Insurance is taken out by people cross a range of income bands. My point was that by paying twice, and being less of a burden on the public system, they effectively subsidise non-insured.

                    “In terms of having low incomes and ongoing health issues, which implies services beyond a 15 minute GP visit, I described how the system is not ‘heavily skewed’ to assist low income people.”
                    You’re just plain wrong. The wealthy pay more for each doctor visit for a range of reasons, including doctor’s own discretion, CSC etc. The chronically ill pay less via high use subsidies. The healthy and weathly subsidise the poor and sick. It’s a simple fact.

                    “Btw your Point 3., is barely worth addressing, but – It would be highly unlikely for GPs to transfer costs between patients (published fee schedules indicate that is the case).”
                    I did’t claim they did. Please take more time to read my posts before commenting. My claim was that the wealthy will not enjoy the doctor initiated discounts offered to the poor. Again, that is a simple, self evident fact.

    • Nic the NZer 9.3
      17 August 2016 at 7:10 pm

      From watching ‘In the land of plenty’ to the right you will see that in the 90s when Treasury and the Reserve Bank concluded that there was insufficient gap between wages and benefits (due to their policy of lowering wages) they would apply the obvious solution… benefits needed to be cut to create an incentive to work.
      This seems to have created more unemployment but there is always that all important incentive gap to consider as a priority i guess.

  10. DLANZ Disabled Liberation Aotearoa NZ 10
    17 August 2016 at 10:16 am

    A good read, as Grant Roberston highlights the inadequate methods of Social Research as foundations of Public Policy making decisions that are themselves flawed, and prone to being misused by this and consecutive governments.

    Even back in 2001 when Whakanui Oranga / The NZ Disability Strategy was launched, it stated then, that over two thirds of our working age were not working. Not because they weren’t looking, but not as many opportunites were available DLANZ has said before Disability writers have commented about the sanitization of 19th and 20th century attempts on disabled and the poor in a Society’s drive for ideal types in their ‘Perfect World Order’ (B. Gleeson 1996) and including the history of eugenics and colonization here in Aotearoa NZ (H.Stace 1997) The dependency model of disability taking disabled out of of employment data is still the continuation of seeing our existence being further labeled as unproductive, and as such unworthy of recognition.

    Definitions of ‘actively seeking wok’ were not are not helped when governments continue to run with these models driven by economic and profits, rather than folk and Whenua of Aortearoa. I think it was noted Maori Academic Leonie Pihama who mentioned the data of comapative research between ‘have and have nots’ is based on models from the USA Color bars, and not Indigenous

    This John Key led Coalition has thumbed its nose to its Sovereign obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840, and a similar for Disabled People / Nga Hauaa.
    Waiata “The Ballad of John and Yoko” The Beatles

    Regards and keep smiling
    Doug Hay DLANZ

  11. JonL 11
    17 August 2016 at 10:35 am

    Doing what the US does….continually redefine the definition of unemployment and you too can have 4.3% official in a time of 23-25% real (1970s definitions) unemployment. Just another shift towards total la la land.

    • Stuart Munro 11.1
      17 August 2016 at 8:04 pm

      Yeah but it delays the public wrath – these guys just want to push accountability out past the next election – like they did with slave fishing.

    • Phil 11.2
      18 August 2016 at 10:41 am

      continually redefine the definition of unemployment and you too can have 4.3% official in a time of 23-25% real (1970s definitions) unemployment

      Citation needed?
      I’m genuinely curious to understand how you would get to that result.

      • Colonial Viper 11.2.1
        19 August 2016 at 7:31 pm

        one main way is to by definition exclude people from being participants in the work force. If you are not a participant in the workforce, you by definition cannot be unemployed.

  12. Stuart Munro 12
    17 August 2016 at 11:14 am

    Any real government would use the stats critically – have an inclusive definition of unemployment and underemployment because they meant to resolve these problems.

    This contemptible pack of thieves minimise every problem they don’t mean to solve – which is pretty much all of them. Housing is not a crisis. There are no Asian buyers. The economy is booming, the cheque is in the mail and John Key won’t come in your mouth.

  13. Adrian 13
    17 August 2016 at 11:54 am

    Everyday the bullshit just gets deeper.
    The ugly truth about newspaper job ads is that somebody already has the job but the ad is to cover the bullshit about having advertised it for various bits of legislation and ever deepening bullshit.

  14. Leftie 14
    17 August 2016 at 12:10 pm

    Lets not forget that the key led National government counts 1 hours work as being employed.

    NZ unemployment rate tumbles, and workforce shrinks, in recalculation

    <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/81579257/NZ-unemployment-rate-tumbles-and-workforce-shrinks-in-recalculation

    • Craig H 14.1
      17 August 2016 at 12:53 pm

      That particular change is from well before the current government.

      Stats NZ do measure underemployment as well, but it’s well buried on their website.

  15. Ben 15
    17 August 2016 at 12:30 pm

    “Stats NZ was unable to quantify the impact of the change in the questionnaire on the number of people employed in the quarter,” Westpac economist Anne Bonniface noted.

    However, the latest data appeared “roughly consistent with a wider range of labour market indicators we saw over the June quarter,” she wrote.

    “Our underlying view is that we’re continuing to see a continued gradual improvement in the labour market, supported by a backdrop of solid economic growth. However, strong growth in the working age population, along with a subdued inflation backdrop is keeping a lid on wage pressure.”

    • Stuart Munro 15.1
      17 August 2016 at 2:34 pm

      That’s the Gnats – nothing to offer but lies and fawning toadies.

      Of course the numbers will match their expectations – they’re made up.

  16. Byd0nz 16
    17 August 2016 at 2:15 pm

    Lower unemployment equals more begging on the street as NZ heads for 3rd world status, but you wont care coz you still going to vote for the continuation of Capitalism.

  17. Keith 17
    17 August 2016 at 2:50 pm

    You are unemployed.
    You are looking for work on the internet because it’s 2016, not 1916.
    And because of all of the above, according to this rather defensive Chief Statistician, you are not unemployed!

    Oh no, because you are about to enter another dimension. A dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone (or The NZ Government Dept of Statistics)!

    Seriously?? Are we meant to have faith in meaningful statistics or very creative lies?

    • Leftie 17.1
      17 August 2016 at 3:13 pm

      Hundreds of thousands of plus I’s Keith, that is telling it like it is. Best comment on this thread imo.

      • save nz 17.1.1
        17 August 2016 at 3:30 pm

        +2 for Keith.

        Yes we are in the twilight zone for housing, wages, spying and statistics…

        Planet Key is completely engulfed and spreading rapidly,, but toxic bacteria seems to have infected the Red Planet too from the last 30 Years…

    • Planet Earth 17.2
      17 August 2016 at 4:10 pm

      You are employed.
      You are looking at the jobs on Trade Me and Seek to see if there are any jobs that you prefer to your current job.
      You should not “be included as being unemployed”.

      Labour will not direct the Chief Statistician to reverse this change, should they get in in 2017.

      • Draco T Bastard 17.2.1
        17 August 2016 at 4:23 pm

        You are employed.
        You are looking at the jobs on Trade Me and Seek to see if there are any jobs that you prefer to your current job.
        You should not “be included as being unemployed”.

        That would be a lie.

        The logic actually goes like this:

        1. Is the person employed
        2. If yes then they are employed: end
        2a. If no then
        3. Are they looking for work
        4. If yes then they are unemployed
        4a. If no then they aren’t employed

        And we should probably increase that to take into account how many hours they’re actually working as well:
        1. If > 30 hours then full time employed
        2. if between 10 hours and 30 hours then part time employed
        3. if < 10 hours then under employed

        Then we might start getting some viable stats to work with.

        • Lanthanide 17.2.1.1
          17 August 2016 at 5:02 pm

          Actually your second set should be:

          1. If > 30 hours then full time employed
          2. If < 30 hours then part time employed
          3. Would you like to work more hours?

          If 3 is "yes", then under-employed.

          • alwyn 17.2.1.1.1
            17 August 2016 at 6:54 pm

            Oh dear. Murphy’s Law will bite you.
            The first person to use this will work exactly 30 hours a week and your program will have a nervous breakdown.
            (Just joking)

  18. Takere 18
    17 August 2016 at 4:25 pm

    People who are unemployed that are JobSeekers that aren’t counted in this latest unemployment figure that are JobSeekersin this group June 2016 is 93,100. June 2016 is 93,100. Total number of people in receipt of a benefit 280,177, 9.9% total unemployed.

  19. Bob (Northland) 19
    17 August 2016 at 10:21 pm

    This entire issue around the use of the “Household Labour Force Survey” is total B.S.
    and both major Political Parties (Labour and National) have been and continue to be guilty of fudging the unemployment numbers for political purposes.
    Why do a door to door survey at all when any responsible Government should know precisely what amount of money is being paid out in Unemployment Benefits, the numbers of every person receiving an unemployment benefit, including their personal details.
    The IRD obviously know how many people have an IRD number so the maths is very simple to calculate the unemployment rate
    In this day and age of computer technology this information should be available on a data base at the push of a keyboard button.
    That is what Grant Robertson should be demanding!. No more obfuscation on the numbers then!
    However then again maybe people employed by the Statistics Department to carry out the Household Labour Force Survey would no longer have a job and need to register for the unemployment benefit!

    • Nic the NZer 19.1
      17 August 2016 at 10:49 pm

      In fact the information about total benefit numbers is published by the Ministry of Social Development.
      https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/benefit/

      Obviously this information is not compatible with other countries (due to differences between countries in benefit entitlements). It’s not considered as good as the HLFS information due to problems such a seasonal variation, and changes in benefit categories influencing the statistics.

    • McFlock 19.2
      17 August 2016 at 11:18 pm

      If someone misses a meeting and gets kicked off the UB, does that mean they’re not unemployed?

      If someone stops working so has no income, but is living with their de facto partner who pays all the bills, are they unemployed?

      If they subsequently decide to go back to work, so are applying every day but still aren’t on a benefit, are they unemployed?

      Not everything is on a realtime database, and nor should it be.

    • alwyn 19.3
      18 August 2016 at 12:09 pm

      “Why do a door to door survey at all”.
      Pray tell us. What is the “door to door” survey you are talking about?
      I can assure you that it is not the Household Labour Force Survey, about which you are clearly quite ignorant.
      It is nothing like a measure of who is getting an unemployment benefit which actually provides a terrible estimate of unemployment.
      Before you continue to comment why not have a look at what the survey really is and why counting the unemployed by counting up the people getting a benefit is not nearly as complete.
      http://www.stats.govt.nz/survey-participants/a-z-of-our-surveys/household-labour-force-survey.aspx

  20. dv 20
    18 August 2016 at 12:16 pm

    The first interview is face-to-face, by an interviewer using a laptop. Subsequent interviews are by telephone.

    So where does that interview occur Alwyn?

    • alwyn 20.1
      18 August 2016 at 6:42 pm

      What does your question have to do with anything I said?
      The people in the HLFS are pre-chosen. They don’t just go “door to door” looking for people to question. I was part of it about 15 years ago. You can’t even refuse to take part. It is rather like having to answer the Census questions because the law says you must.
      Actually it was pretty fast once I had done the first lot of questions. When they rang every three months I would tell them immediately that I was not looking for a job and would not accept one if I was offered one. They could then start at about question 50.

      • maninthemiddle 20.1.1
        24 August 2016 at 1:56 pm

        There is a particular narrative with the left, and it goes like this:

        1. The data shows the economy is improving.
        2. If the economy is improving, our negative narrative is endangered.
        3. We must show, by far means or foul, that the economy is not improving.
        4. We will attack the data.
        5. Unless it says what we want.

  21. maninthemiddle 21
    24 August 2016 at 1:54 pm

    Meanwhile, in the real world that Grant Robertson doesn’t inhabit…

    “Annual change
    Food prices decreased 1.3 percent in the year to July 2016.

    In July 2016 compared with July 2015:

    Fruit and vegetable prices fell 0.9 percent.
    Meat, poultry, and fish prices fell 2.1 percent.
    Grocery food prices fell 2.9 percent.
    Non-alcoholic beverage prices fell 2.7 percent.
    Restaurant meals and ready-to-eat food prices rose 1.9 percent.”
    http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/prices_indexes/FoodPriceIndex_HOTPJul16.aspx

    These are the things that affect ordinary kiwi’s. These are the things that will get this government re-elected. These are the things Labour ignores.