NRT: Still 42,000 out of work under National

41 comments on “NRT: Still 42,000 out of work under National ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lanthanide 1

   7 May 2014 at 12:37 pm

   Isn’t this the same report that economists / whoevers were saying could show unemployment dropping down to 5.7%?

   Guess their National masters have disappointed them. Again.
2. Ad 2

   7 May 2014 at 12:41 pm

   It will be very difficult to change the government if that figure dips below into the 5.5% unemployed range. The MSM will fuel a “we are doing fine” theme on it.

   Does anyone have a comparative tracking of “Country is going in the right/wrong direction” versus “NZ % unemployment”, or even “Preferred vote” versus “NZ % unemployment?”

   The Obama campaign watched these correlations very closely. Although we haven’t quite got the correlations to Nick Silver’s degree of certitude:
   http://www.theguardian.com/science/grrlscientist/2012/nov/08/nate-sliver-predict-us-election

   IPredict is however showing some movement against National in the last few days. So at least gut instict is showing:

   https://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=contract_detail&contract=PM.2014.NATIONAL
   • Seti 2.1

     7 May 2014 at 1:13 pm

     “It will be very difficult to change the government if that figure dips below into the 5.5% unemployed range.”

     The government changed in 2008 when the rate was 4.2%.
     • Ad 2.1.1

       7 May 2014 at 1:33 pm

       Only just. Didn’t say impossible.
     • Gosman 2.1.2

       7 May 2014 at 1:47 pm

       Which way was the unemployment rate going in late 2008?

       [lprent: Exactly how lazy are you? The link is in the damn post. I just had to check it. Describe it yourself.

       Incidentally, asking rhetorical questions like that will get you banned for wasting my time the next time I have to check to see if the appropriate links are in the post. ]
       • Gosman 2.1.2.1

         7 May 2014 at 4:25 pm

         The reason you ban people for asking rhetorical questions is what exactly?

         As you picked up on the answer to that was quite simple to ascertain. The unemployment rate was rising dramatically in 2008 as opposed to the situation that is happening at the moment.

         Using a rhetorical questions to highlight this fact doesn’t seem to be much of a crime in my opinion but if you have an objection to doing so it would be good to understand why.

         [lprent: Part of my task list here is a QA to check the posts for links. So as soon as anyone asks a question about a detail that should have been linked to in the post (ie it was part of what the post discussed) then I have to check it just in case I missed something.

         We aren’t frigging Whaleoil where lying by omitting links is pretty routine. These days Cameron seldom even links to news articles he is quoting, because he routinely leaves out the ‘balance’ paragraphs as they would usually make a nonsense of his fantasies.

         In this case you cannot get the figure being discussed in the post without having the 2008 household figures in the post or linked in the post.

         I was sure I’d checked it. But after reading your question about the post and treating it as a genuine question, I checked it. There was a frigging graph sitting right there and link to the underlying numbers. It was a waste of my time. So was writing the last note. So is writing this note.

         Each of them takes time away from the many other things that I should be doing, like scanning the other hundreds of comments or even (in extreme cases) the work I am paid for – which means that I have to work later to catch up the hours. In Other words it costs me. Since I value my time, I try to make sure people do not do this frequently. Wasting my time to one degree or another is the primary reason that people get bans here. Read the policy and you’ll see that most of the offenses pointed at wind up as being that. I have to clear the mess.

         If you want to ask rhetorical questions (a silly tactic anyway) do not do them anywhere where I can interpret them as being about the post (or for that matter often about notes that I leave – but in this case it was a valid question).

         If I detect a hint of deliberate game playing with the sysop or moderators with the intent of wasting time. It is just one of those silly mistakes that many people make – like thinking sysops are their friends. Then I ban first and worry about it later. This is merely to demonstrate the appropriate counter tactic and why playing to waste sysop or moderator time is inadvisable.

         If I don’t think it is deliberate I will warn once. Needless to say I don’t get plagued by people wasting my valuable time much. ]
         • Dave 2.1.2.1.1

           8 May 2014 at 2:48 pm

           the reference by Lprent to Whaleoil is unwarranted. most articles on Whaleoil are referenced, i would say far more than this site. There may be political differences, but factual checking of posts would be good.

           [lprent: Entirely warranted.

           1. I didn’t say “referenced”. I said “links” to quoted material. Not that he does either a lot of the time.

           2. Just looking, the second post on his front page at present referenced Audrey Young from where? You have to know who she writes for. Most people who aren’t political nutters don’t. It also didn’t have a link.

           3. Same here a few posts further down.

           4. It has to be a concious decision, because as I said, the distinctive difference between these posts and others is that these are real journalists. They write with a minimal bit of balance in their articles. Camewron obviously finds this offensive because he always leaves out anything, even a few sentences worth, of any attempt at balance. By not providing the link he has made it harder for people to go and read what they actually said rather than the selective quoting Cameron used.

           5. You appear to be an idiot who can’t read. ]
   • Lanthanide 2.2

     7 May 2014 at 3:20 pm

     iPredict has been rating National’s chances too highly for many months now. I think Bill English coming out and pretty much saying “we’ll probably lose the election” has made a few of them take notice.
3. Gosman 3

   7 May 2014 at 1:36 pm

   A few inconvenient facts for you.

   The vast majority of the rise in unemployment occured in the first year or so of the current National led administratio. The cause behind this rise was the external shock to the economy as a result of the impact of the GFC. Since this time there has generally been far more jobs generated than lost. We also have a much lower unemployment rate than most other western nations around the world.

   The debt increase was not as a result of any change to the tax regime post 2008 but was predicted to occur as part of the decade of deficits that the National led government inherited. This is all detailed in the 2008 PREFU that came out BEFORE National took office.
   • Ad 3.1

     7 May 2014 at 1:54 pm

     This is along my lines of public sentiment following economic momentum.

     To counter that tidal sentiment, you need some really nasty political mistakes. So far there seem to be a good number.

     This political moment will likely be as good as it gets for Labour to take the momentum back, turn civic sentiment hard against economic sentiment, and win the election.
   • Draco T Bastard 3.2

     7 May 2014 at 9:24 pm

     What a load of fucken BS.

     If many more jobs were being created than lost then we wouldn’t still have 6%+ unemployment.

     And Treasuries ‘Decade of Deficits’ was a load of BS anyway:

     Miss Clark, who is acting foreign minister, agreed with Dr Cullen that there would have to be a look at whether some spending could be reprioritised.

     This included the large boost in foreign ministry spending.

     Labour had already held back some intended policy announcements to see what the economic outlook was like.

     Yeah, the previous government were looking at things and cutting spending while National just sailed on cutting taxes that failed to boost the economy and put us even further in debt.
     • Gosman 3.2.1

       8 May 2014 at 9:01 am

       Ummm… you haven’t shown the decade of deficits predicted by Treasury were bollocks. All you have shown is that Labour may have cut spending to try and reduce the deficits.
       • framu 3.2.1.1

         8 May 2014 at 10:20 am

         isnt the decade of deficits based on an assumption of what labour would have done if they won the election?
         • Stuart Munro 3.2.1.1.1

           8 May 2014 at 2:47 pm

           The decade of deficits is a Gosman-coined nonsense. Treasury said nothing of the sort, they don’t put so much weight on longer term predictions.

           A government determined to slate the opposition, and having no positive results to offer is obliged to resort to these kinds of desperate fantasies.

           Gosman is not rational on this issue and best not encouraged.
         • Gosman 3.2.1.1.2

           9 May 2014 at 10:42 am

           No. It was made on what the Government policy setings and pronoucements were at the time of the prediction.
4. thechangeling 4

   7 May 2014 at 2:07 pm

   Until the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) model changes and is replaced with a Restricted Trade Agreement (RTA) model again, a high level of unemployment in New Zealand is PERMANENT.
   Arguing over tiny changes to the rate of unemployment just glosses over the real facts.
   Free Trade Agreements primarily assist dairy (and a couple of others) to keep expanding their production base but they don’t soak up any more of the unemployed and underemployed. They just make rich farmers and National MP’s richer than they already are.
   Meanwhile, manufacturing continues to contract as a high dollar and lethal, state subsidised competition from China and elsewhere, makes manufacturing here harder and harder and these industries are the ones that have the potential to soak up our unemployed and underemployed.
   When is the main stream media here ever going to start telling the real facts instead of making up trivia.
   • Draco T Bastard 4.1

     7 May 2014 at 9:27 pm

     +111

     When is the main stream media here ever going to start telling the real facts instead of making up trivia.

     They won’t as that would be bad for National and the present economic paradigm that they favour.
5. blue leopard 5

   7 May 2014 at 2:13 pm

   This Green party press release sums it up pretty succinctly, athough even they don’t appear to factor in the underemployed stats.

   “The number of New Zealanders who are unemployed, 162,000, is the highest under National and the highest since 1994, despite the recession having officially ended three years ago. Unemployment is up by 2.6%, or 65,000, since National came to office….

   National’s jobs-poor economic policies simply do not work. They have failed to deliver jobs for New Zealanders.”

   https://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/18-year-unemployment-high-testament-government-s-economic-mismanagement
   • Disraeli Gladstone 5.1

     7 May 2014 at 4:26 pm

     That is some statistical bullshit by the Greens. I’m disappointed with them. Sure, 162,000 unemployed might be the highest since 1994, but that’s because of population growth as well. Looking at the actual unemployment rate, it’s been higher for a fair bit between 94 and the present day.

     I’m really missing when the Greens didn’t pull this type of crap. Because inevitably, National (and I guess pedantic tragics like me…) will talk about their shonky understanding of numbers rather than the actual issue of unemployment.

     Which is far more important but that press release made me roll my eyes instead of agreeing.
     • blue leopard 5.1.1

       7 May 2014 at 9:26 pm

       @ Disraeli,

       What you have picked up on here, is not the Greens manipulating the figures – I very erroneously put a link to a 2012 press release.

       I am sorry for the error.

       However, this is interesting because it highlights the seriously bad unemployment rate that National achieved in 2012 and that when National squawk on about ’employment improving’ they are constantly comparing it to the marvellously high unemployment levels that they managed in 2012 (which this press release was referring to). This is a pretty deceptive and cynical thing to do.

       In fact looking at other time trends (below) – there is a noticeable rise in unemployment every time National get in and they appear to struggle with keeping unemployment low. One could be forgiven for thinking that perhaps they bump the numbers up at the beginning of their term so that they can disingenuously report to the public how employment is dropping – the question should always be asked – dropping compared to what? – because they seem to be consistently higher than when there is a left wing government in.

       Unemployment rate for NZ 1980 – 2014

       As for the Greens commenting on people rather than the percentage of workforce unemployed (the rate). The advantage of doing this is the focus is on people. The unemployment rate affects peoples’ lives adversely (apart from the top 0.01% who can make more profit by screwing their employees wages down). Focussing on the amount of people without jobs, focusses on the reality for these people.

       Peoples’ lives are being adversely affected while National continue to crow that the unemployment rate is ‘improving’ compared to the rotten levels that they were at.

       Conclusion. The Green’s year old press release still makes pertinent points for today. National are no good at ensuring people have jobs.

       ….And what is it with counting a 1 hour a week job as being employed? This is utterly ridiculous.
6. karol 6

   7 May 2014 at 2:17 pm

   It’s also important to look at the quality of the jobs, under-employment, part time employment, temporary employment, low paid employment.
   • thechangeling 6.1

     7 May 2014 at 2:21 pm

     Yes very good point because under-employment is estimated to be about 350,000 on top of the 150,000+ unemployed.
     But I also wonder how many people have been intimidated, psychologically abused and/or chucked off benefits by Winz during Nationals’ term of office just to make the current statistics look better than what they truly are.
     • Gosman 6.1.1

       7 May 2014 at 2:41 pm

       The statistics include total amount of employed people and not just total amount of people looking for work. You would be able to see if the situation you think might be happening because the total amount of employed people would likely fall.
       • lprent 6.1.1.1

         7 May 2014 at 5:03 pm

         Except for

         1. Natural population increases due to kids becoming adults
         2. Immigration
         3. The elderly not retiring because they can’t afford to (and they are living longer and healthier)
         4. The slow inexorable rise of the percentage of women who want to work
         5. The increasing number of people who are able to work despite their disabilities and who Paula is kicking into the people who want work.

         The number of people who’d like to work is still increasing as well. That is in that same set of stats.

         Are you suggesting that the government should operate on a steady state system rather than the dynamic reality. Seems rather unrealistic of you.

         Mind you, that also appears to be how these fools in this government seem to operate as well. They appear to be judging how well they are doing based on comparisons to olden days whne the working population was so much lower. That is why they aren’t reducing the percentages – because the aren’t putting the effort in. Pretty damn lazy eh..

         National – the party that boldly marches forward into the future looking backwards at a world that is long lost.

         That has been my view on the fools since seeing them look back to the 1950s in the late 70s in their think big policies.
         • Gosman 6.1.1.1.1

           8 May 2014 at 8:55 am

           However that is not the case with the recent figures. The data is suggestive that more people are participating in the Labour force. This isn’t what you would expect if people are being chucked off benefits as suggested by thechangeling.
   • Gosman 6.2

     7 May 2014 at 2:42 pm

     You can get those sorts of statistics if you look at average and median wages and also total amount of hours worked.
7. Philj 7

   7 May 2014 at 2:26 pm

   xox
   Quality of the jobs! :(ahaha.!
   More from the islands in the vineyards and slaves on the fishing boats. Holds the wages down for the poor Kiwis. Imports fom Vanuatu take precedence over casualised locals. Shameful
   • karol 7.1

     7 May 2014 at 5:14 pm

     yes. The government likes to focus on the general stats of unemployment vs employment. But all jobs are not equal, and neither is the pay people get.
   • The Real Matthew 7.2

     8 May 2014 at 1:57 pm

     Not everyone can be on a CEO salary.

     You have to start somewhere and there is nothing wrong with getting the hands dirty.

     As a noble man once told me “Unqualified people get unqualified wages”
8. Will@Welly 8

   7 May 2014 at 7:12 pm

   2014 – something about 177,000 new jobs being created by now.
   Oh, that’s right. Just more utter B.S. from John Key, Steven Joyce and Bill English.
   And don’t forget about all those who have left since 2008. Enough to fill how many stadiums?
   Some talk about ‘peak oil’, well a hell of a lot of Kiwis look at their pay packets and feel like they’ve been on peak pays for the past few years – where’s this brighter future, and pay’s catching up with Australia?
   • Draco T Bastard 8.1

     7 May 2014 at 9:36 pm

     where’s this brighter future, and pay’s catching up with Australia?

     Same place it’s always been – in Lala Land on Planet key.
     • blue leopard 8.1.1

       7 May 2014 at 9:48 pm

       +100 DTB
     • The Real Matthew 8.1.2

       8 May 2014 at 1:58 pm

       We must be doing something right with regards to Australia.

       The numbers moving there have reduced drastically.
       • blue leopard 8.1.2.1

         8 May 2014 at 8:33 pm

         …or those who are staying can’t afford to go because their pay is so bad they haven’t enough to save up to get out of the place…..
   • Dave 8.2

     8 May 2014 at 2:57 pm

     Will@Welly. I am a dual Aussie / Kiwi citizen, and hop between both countries, i can tell with some accuracy that the NZ economy is doing very well in comparison of the Aussie economy.

     In Aussie, real wages are dropping, unemployment is rising, and its just bloody tough. Next week Abbot will pass a black budget, to try and trim the excessive borrowings of the Gillard / Rudd governments that saw Labour almost bankrupt Australia. Contrast that, Key and his government has the debt down, the economy is steady as she goes improving.

     Now what was that you were saying about catching up with Aussie.

     PS: if NZ wants to turbocharge the economy, start Mining the wealth in the ground, that’s all that has kept Aussie going!!
     • Mike S 8.2.1

       8 May 2014 at 9:12 pm

       “In Aussie, real wages are dropping,”

       They have been dropping here since the 80’s.
9. karol 9

   8 May 2014 at 7:10 am

   Some more detail behind the broad general stats in this article:

   Increase in employment stats due to net increase in immigration. Wages remain fairly low.

   Most (19,000) of the latest quarter’s increase was in full-time jobs. Just over a fifth of the 2.3 million people employed work part-time, of whom just under a fifth say they are willing and able to work more hours.

   The growth in employment was concentrated in Auckland and Canterbury, but the rest of New Zealand managed a 2 per cent annual increase.

   Wage inflation, meanwhile, remains subdued.

   The quarterly employment survey (QES) recorded a rise of 2.5 per cent in the average hourly wage over the year to March, slightly down on 2.7 per cent in the year to December 2013. In the construction sector the rise was 5.4 per cent.
10. Gosman 10

    8 May 2014 at 8:58 am

    Test
11. Brian Vercoe 11

    8 May 2014 at 12:16 pm

    Unemployment is necessarily a govt. imposed crime against the most vulnerable people in society.It is a policy that has be pursued by labour and national since the Langely Govt.The govt.debt /deficit which people seem to lose sleep over for the wrong reasons.A govt.deficit equals to the last cent, net financial assests in the non-govt.sector.Its what underpins company profits etc.So unemployment arises when the govt. fails to spend enough into the economy to cover the taxes liabilities it imposes and any desires to save financial assets created by the tax and other govt. policy.Said another way,for any given size of govt ,unemployment is evidence of over taxation. Motivation not withstanding, Key and his govt.have been aggressively promoting policy that creates and sustains unemployment.You always have to keep in mind that the political elites ideal of freedom and progress is to give everyone an unfettered opportunities of remaining exactly where they are.
    • The Real Matthew 11.1

      8 May 2014 at 2:01 pm

      If Gosman got moderated for a rhetorical question I can only imagine what will happen to theis load of tripe typed by Brian Vercoe.

      Wait a minute, we are on a far left blog, nothing will happen!

      [lprent: I have no idea what you are talking about. However we moderate based on behaviour. One of those behaviours that I moderate on is when pathetic fuckwits like you address comments to the ether about the site. I consider that they are addressed to me and that I should spend time answering them, one way or another.

      Banned for a week to give you time to read the policy about wasting my time. ]
      • blue leopard 11.1.1

        8 May 2014 at 8:03 pm

        ooo looks like The Real Matthew got quite a lot wrong there – Brian Vercoe wasn’t writing tripe and something did happen to someone who was writing a lot of tripe….

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS