Nats: you didn’t have a job, you’re not really unemployed

Written By: - Date published: 10:08 am, August 18th, 2011 - 36 comments
Categories: jobs, unemployment - Tags:

In a desperate and heartless attempt to spin their way out of their awful record on jobs, National is getting surreal. First, there’s Bill English claiming that the job you used to have under Labour wasn’t a real job. Then, you’ve got John Key saying that you’re not really unemployed now. I guess it’s all in you imagination. Don’t look to National for help.

English’s line is that the job you used to have was based on unsustainable spending and government borrowing. I’m not quite sure what he means by that because Labour always ran government surpluses and government spending was 30% of GDP when they left office, the same as when they entered it. Under National, $36 billion has been borrowed and government spending has jumped to 35% of GDP.

Key says that “The household labour force survey indicates whether a person is looking for 1 hour’s work” and that’s not real unemployment. In reality, it indicates if you are not working, looking for work, would take a job if you can find it, and want at least one hour of work. But the survey shows that 95,000 of the 150,000 unemployed are looking for full time work, that’s up from 56,000 wanting full time work and 94,000 total unemployed when National came to power. (Statistics NZ Infoshare).

Key then says “60 percent of the 15 to 19-year-olds they rang up in that survey [who were unemployed] were in training, work, school, or, basically, at university”. And, apparently, that’s not real unemployment either. I don’t know about you, but I remember being out of work while at uni and it felt a lot like being unemployed. It felt a lot like not having an income and scrapping by trying make ends meet at the same time as studying. But what would Key know of that?

It’s time for National to grow up and face the facts. There are 65,200 unemployed people aged 15-24 – 22,600 more than when they took power (Key lied in Parliament yesterday, saying that 26,700 15-19 year olds are unemployed when it’s really 39,300). Do you believe that this army of unemployed are all kids looking for some after school pocket money?

– Bright Red

36 comments on “Nats: you didn’t have a job, you’re not really unemployed ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Colonial Viper 1
    18 August 2011 at 10:25 am

    Labour should have supported a lowered voting age.

    National is economically disenfranchising the young adults in our society. And they have no say about it come November.

    Pretty angry about all of this.

    • Tombstone 1.1
      18 August 2011 at 10:57 am

      Key is a coward and his party a bunch of clueless bullies who care nothing for the average Kiwi but are only there to serve their rich mates and global interests. They make me bloody sick!

  2. queenstfarmer 2
    18 August 2011 at 10:31 am

    I’m not quite sure what he means by that because Labour always ran government surpluses

    It is no feat or acheivement for a Govt to run a surplus. Any Govt can instantly create a massive surplus by putting all taxes to say 80%. Or by cutting spending to virtually zero. Or any other number of ways. So saying “Govt X always ran surpluses” is meaningless. The question is what impact or harm there was to the economy. Which I think is the point of English’s argument.

    • Blighty 2.1
      18 August 2011 at 10:36 am

      except, Labour didn’t put taxes at 80%. In fact, except for the 39% rate in 1999, all Labour did was lower taxes.

      English claims that Labour borrowed and spent. It didn’t. He has. Simple as.

      • aj 2.1.1
        18 August 2011 at 11:07 am

        Labour: 30% of GDP when they left office, surplus
        National, 35% of GDP, huge borrowings but lower taxes (for the top 10%)

        Debt has to be repaid and that is effectively a tax on peoples future earnings, then national are taxing New Zealanders, in the widest sense of the word, more than labour did

    • The Voice of Reason 2.2
      18 August 2011 at 10:54 am

      If it’s no feat or achievement, how come Bill English can’t do it? Useless, maybe?

      • Colonial Viper 2.2.1
        18 August 2011 at 11:00 am

        lol English can’t even cross a low threshold then according to qstf

      • queenstfarmer 2.2.2
        18 August 2011 at 11:07 am

        He (rather the Govt) could. As I said, any Govt could do it instantly.

        • The Voice of Reason 2.2.2.1
          18 August 2011 at 11:09 am

          So why don’t they? What’s wrong with them, in your opinion?

          • queenstfarmer 2.2.2.1.1
            18 August 2011 at 12:30 pm

            Why don’t they? I don’t know. Why does any Govt set the economic policy they do. Presumably because they think it’s optimal (either for them to get reelected, for the economy, for their base, take your pick). If enough people disagree, they’ll be chucked out. If enough people agree, they’ll get another turn.

            The fact remains that claiming a surplus as any sort of acheivment is irrelevant.

            • Lanthanide 2.2.2.1.1.1
              18 August 2011 at 1:00 pm

              “The fact remains that claiming a surplus as any sort of acheivment is irrelevant.”

              Claiming a surplus where you did *not* set the tax rates to 80% or cut spending to zero clearly *is* an achievement.

              • queenstfarmer …
                18 August 2011 at 2:19 pm

                Not at all, it’s just taking in more than you spend. There’s no skill involved. It’s not like the Govt is a business that has to convince customers to give it money. You could cut all taxes by 50%, cut all spending by 90%, and bingo you’ve got a surplus. Somehow I don’t think many people would hail that as an achievment though.

                • Lanthanide …
                  18 August 2011 at 4:01 pm

                  Ok, how about this: running a surplus for years on end, and being re-elected twice while doing it.

                  Clearly if they had put taxes up to 50% and cut spending by 90% they wouldn’t be re-elected.

                  So, running a surplus AND being re-elected *is* an achievement.

                  • queenstfarmer …
                    18 August 2011 at 5:28 pm

                    What difference does it make? Being (re)elected is a huge acheivement. So being elected and running a surplus, being elected and running a defecit, or being elected and standing on your head does not alter that it is still an acheivment. It is the scale of the acheivement that is debatable.

                    • mik e …
                      18 August 2011 at 6:08 pm

                      lanth not as good as borrowing $52 billion and hoping by the double dipping dipstick from dipton .K road drag queen might be Ryalling us ,his rhetoric sounds like the brat pack is dressing up in drag to fool us.

    • Lanthanide 2.3
      18 August 2011 at 11:51 am

      That’s pure sophistry and you know it.

      • queenstfarmer 2.3.1
        18 August 2011 at 12:26 pm

        It’s a factually correct statement – do you think it’s incorrect? If so, how?

        • Lanthanide 2.3.1.1
          18 August 2011 at 12:59 pm

          Did I said it was incorrect? No.

          soph·ist·ry   [sof-uh-stree] Show IPA
          noun, plural -ries.
          1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
          2. a false argument; sophism.

          • queenstfarmer 2.3.1.1.1
            18 August 2011 at 1:23 pm

            Did I say you said it was incorrect? No. I asked do you think it’s incorrect. And you said no. So you agree it is correct. All’s well that ends well.

            • Lanthanide 2.3.1.1.1.1
              18 August 2011 at 4:01 pm

              Yes, I agree it is correct, and it’s a sophist argument.

              Not something I’d be proud of, personally.

            • aj 2.3.1.1.1.2
              18 August 2011 at 4:36 pm

              You ignore my comment 11:07am

              I invite you to refute any of my statements. Otherwise you are full of wind.

              1/ Labour: 30% of GDP when they left office, surplus
              2/ National, 35% of GDP, huge borrowings but lower taxes (for the top 10%)
              3/Debt has to be repaid and that is effectively a tax on peoples future earnings, then national are taxing New Zealanders, in the widest sense of the word, more than labour did

              • queenstfarmer …
                18 August 2011 at 5:35 pm

                Refute how? If it’s true, it’s true (that’s a truism).

                Re 3, the only question I would have is whether National is spending more than Labour (putting aside earthquake spending of course). If so, then yes National could be said to be “taxing” (in the wide sense) more than Labour. If not, then 3 is wrong.

                Either way Govts need to control spending. This Govt and the previous (and before then) have failed miserably at doing this. Key is the latest to kick the superannuation can down the road.

              • mik e …
                18 August 2011 at 5:47 pm

                aj your figures are wrong ! 10% aprox $19 billion is the exact figure on borrowing but when you take the Cullen fund and acc fund into account it was ZERO and thats the figure the double dipping dipstick from dipton is using when he Quotes his figures which he expects to reach $72 billion in two years.$3.6 billion a year on interest a year, ten weeks of borrowing just to pay the interest.The bankers are laughing all the way to hell and back.

        • McFlock 2.3.1.2
          18 August 2011 at 12:59 pm

          It is a logically correct statement. There is no assertion of any real-world fact – you are not accusing labour of doing any particular thing. You’re just trying to muddy the waters. Next you’ll be saying is that it’s possible for bad governments to run at a short term surplus by defining “short term” as just the period that labour is in government, be it one term or three.

    • bbfloyd 2.4
      18 August 2011 at 1:24 pm

      queeny… that statement was meaningless… unless you are just attempting some sort of diversion, (and even if you are)you’re wasting space here…

      • Craig Glen Eden 2.4.1
        18 August 2011 at 3:38 pm

        Surely Queenstfarmer was pulling Lanths tit (done in jest ) because otherwise it was all just cow shed excrement. McFlock pulled the wool over qsfarmer any how!

        I wont continue with their was a bloke called John key whos name rhymed with Donkey.

    • mik e 2.5
      18 August 2011 at 5:32 pm

      Que Labour saved over $30 billion kiwisaver Cullen fund acc paid of $20billion in Debt invested billions in health education refurbished the armed services to the tune of $5.5 billion increased the police force by nearly 2,000, build new prisons $1.2 up graded infrastructure spending the list goes on.National are borrowing $52 billion at a cost of $2.6 billion a year to build motor ways in Auckland to buy votes when fuel prices are going to continue to rise making their building dearer. and the worth dicey at best.

  3. Tangled up in blue 3
    18 August 2011 at 10:34 am

    I think that Key has a point that it’s peculiar for a full-time student looking for a 1-hour per week job as being classified as ‘unemployed’. Even though they have been defining it like this for 25 years.

    A clearer distinction between looking for full-time vs. part time would be more accurate imo.

    • Blighty 3.1
      18 August 2011 at 10:43 am

      if the measure is consistent, it doesn’t really matter. It’s simply not credible to assume that all these people are just looking for an hour or two. it’s demeaning of the situation they’re in, too.

      the HLFS does break down unemployed by whether they want full or part-time work but not by age group.

      • Tangled up in blue 3.1.1
        18 August 2011 at 10:59 am

        the HLFS does break down unemployed by whether they want full or part-time work but not by age group.

        It would clarify the situation if it was done by age group. It’s not unreasonable to assume that the 15-19 age group would be more likely to be looking for part-time work.

    • Richard 3.2
      18 August 2011 at 11:35 am

      I doubt many students are looking for just 1 hour a week… it’d not be worth the hassle

  4. KJT 4
    18 August 2011 at 10:43 am

    Is this from the “Ministry of Truth”.

    Orwell was right.

  5. tc 5
    18 August 2011 at 1:14 pm

    ‘English’s line is that the job you used to have was based on unsustainable spending ‘ geez what does that say for anyone making/marketing/supporting or selling unecessary consumer goods, alcohol, tobacco to name a few.

    Don’t suppose that includes former treasury analysts does it ?

  6. weka 6
    18 August 2011 at 3:39 pm

    Key then says “60 percent of the 15 to 19-year-olds they rang up in that survey [who were unemployed] were in training, work, school, or, basically, at university”. And, apparently, that’s not real unemployment either. I don’t know about you, but I remember being out of work while at uni and it felt a lot like being unemployed. It felt a lot like not having an income and scrapping by trying make ends meet at the same time as studying. But what would Key know of that?
     

    I don’t get this. Surely the definition of being unemployed is someone who has no job and is looking for one/wanting one or is on the dole? How can a 15 year old at high school be classified as unemployed?

  7. Marjorie Dawe 7
    18 August 2011 at 4:30 pm

    Good question. Even a 12 year old paperboy is employed but his mates might not be. Lets lower the age some more. By the way, I thought the school leaving age was now 16 or am I wrong?

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.