Quarterly Employment Survey

27 comments on “Quarterly Employment Survey ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Trevor Mallard 1

   4 May 2009 at 2:55 pm

   So we have had a summit and no real action – I thought the idea was to cut through normal govt processes and to focus on what was immediately important – and none of it (other than 9 day f/n for 3 companies) has happened. So rather than a govt of action Key is now showing himself as moribund.
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 1.1

     4 May 2009 at 3:09 pm

     The idea of the summit was to provide a short term projects to provide employment until global events turned more favourable. The partcipants all complained about not getting enough tax breaks- they totally missed the point.
     The governments response was to SACK more people- they totally missed the point.
     Rodney Hide wants to take away the capacity for Auckland councils to develop their local projects and sack more people.
     Meanwhile any number of much needed infrastructure, R and D and community development initiatives remain unfunded and left to die.
     Can someone in the press please ask why?
   • Jared 1.2

     4 May 2009 at 3:22 pm

     What would the Labour party have done had they still been in power?
     • Eddie 1.2.1

       4 May 2009 at 3:58 pm

       You remember the election 6 months ago? Weren’t you paying attention to the parties’ policies?

       Labour was promising a mini-Budget in December of stimulus programs to create jobs and infrastructure. They were going to put money into jobs rich programs like home insulation and public transport. There was stuff about training allowances for the newly unemployed. Bigger minimum wage increases to help keep consumer demand up. No tax cuts this year would have meant less stress on the government’s accounts allowing more jobs rich spending (instead we got tax cuts for the rich, who aren’t spending what they got)
       • Jared 1.2.1.1

         4 May 2009 at 4:18 pm

         Labour also promised a universal student allowance in the pre election promise-a-thon so forgive me for forgetting the finer details in their master plan. Have National not also implemented a training subsidy in the form of its 9 day fortnight?? National are also forging ahead with upgrading state houses
         (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10567658)
         Interms of minimum wage increases id like to note this piece of hansard

         “Hon KATE WILKINSON: I have seen several reports, including one from Mr Mallard himself, who said he could not commit to a large increase in the minimum wage due to the economic conditions in October last year—conditions that we know have since worsened. I have seen a report from Phil Goff demanding a rise to $13. I have seen the Labour Party’s election manifesto, which promotes an increase to $12.65. Yet Labour members’ own colleague, Darien Fenton, has gone on to describe today’s increase as miserable and measly. I ask where the Opposition actually stands on the minimum wage.”

         I sincerely doubt either Labour would walk the talk about a $15 minimum wage or that a minimum wage increase would effect a substantial impact in consumer demand. Your note about the rich receiving tax cuts is partly true, i mean, they did receive a tax cut, but whos to say they don’t deserve it? For years they have been ignored while the lower class received the largest piece of the pie, it was merely giving a little back to those who support the country with their tax contribution. But thats not to say those on lower wages didnt also receive a tax break, a handsome one at that.
         • Eddie 1.2.1.1.1

           4 May 2009 at 4:24 pm

           Number of jobs saved by 9-day fortnight: 113
           Number of jobs lost in the last 3 months: 46,700
         • Zaphod Beeblebrox 1.2.1.1.2

           4 May 2009 at 4:29 pm

           At least they won’t have to worry about upgrading any state houses in the Hobsonville development. Since they aren’t providing any state houses there. In fact I see that Housing NZ has slowed the whole project down to a crawl, which will be great for local employment.
         • r0b 1.2.1.1.3

           4 May 2009 at 11:40 pm

           But thats not to say those on lower wages didnt also receive a tax break, a handsome one at that.

           Ahh – what? For incomes less than $40,000 National’s latest tax cut was exactly $0. How “handome” is that?
           http://www.thestandard.org.nz/herald-youre-too-poor-to-exist/
         • Jared 1.2.1.1.4

           4 May 2009 at 11:48 pm

           Hey rob, is it just me or are you ignoring the IETC? Is that not a tax cut? Hell, I wouldn’t mind a tax cut like that, oh wait, thats right, those earning under $26,000 get jack shit. Nothing under Labour and nothing under National, smoove
         • r0b 1.2.1.1.5

           4 May 2009 at 11:57 pm

           The IETC? So what you meant to say is something like “But thats not to say single people without children on lower wages didnt also receive a tax break, a handsome one at that (if you consider $10 per week handsome that is). But as for other lower income earners, they get zip.” Is that more like it? You should try and be more clear Jared.
         • Jared 1.2.1.1.6

           5 May 2009 at 12:08 am

           Low Income families already receive handsome tax cuts in the form of working for families, as they have done over the past 5 or 10 years under labour. Everyone is hurting at the moment, yet the middle class have conveniently been ignored by labour. Or is your ethos that tax cuts should only benefit the lower income bracket?
         • r0b 1.2.1.1.7

           5 May 2009 at 12:18 am

           Strictly speaking WFF isn’t a tax cut. And it certainly wasn’t delivered by National, which is what you clearly imply when you state:

           Your note about the rich receiving tax cuts is partly true, i mean, they did receive a tax cut, … But thats not to say those on lower wages didnt also receive a tax break, a handsome one at that.

           which is simply wrong (apart from the few affected by IETC).

           Or is your ethos that tax cuts should only benefit the lower income bracket?

           Yes, that’s my ethos. The rich (like me) are paying very average levels of tax by world standards. The poor need it more.
         • Jared 1.2.1.1.8

           5 May 2009 at 12:23 am

           Actually, I wouldn’t mind filing an OIA request to find out the exact numbers who qualify for the IETC…
           Id say its more than you’d think.
           Also, thats where our opinions differ. Absolutely I support policies benefiting the lower income brackets, income protection affords other benefits including reduced healthcare expenses, lower dependency on social welfare etc. But, those on a middle income deserve support also. These days $50k isn’t actually that much, especially if the family has a mortgage. This recession is hitting everyone, not just the lower tax brackets. Personally I know of at least a dozen $60k a year plus earners who have recently been made redundant.
2. Daveski 2

   4 May 2009 at 3:30 pm

   Tane fails Economics 101.

   It’s not the Govt’s role to create jobs. That’s the role of businesses.

   The Govt’s major role is to create the environment to make it easier to do business in this country and encourage business to employ staff. Strangely, you lot were against this.

   More importantly, as a trading nation, our economy is reliant on other countries.

   BTW It’s a great time to be in opposition. You can claim credit for the great economy of the past and blame the Nats for the rising unemployment!
   • Eddie 2.1

     4 May 2009 at 3:52 pm

     “It’s not the Govt’s role to create jobs. That’s the role of businesses” Tell that to Obama, and the governments of the UK, Germany, India, China, Australia, France…
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 2.2

     4 May 2009 at 3:57 pm

     Creating the environment to do business means having proper infrastructure and communities within which businesses can operate, otherwise why operate in NZ and not elsewhere. This involves having educated, healthy, productive workers who can operate free of fear of being sacked and having proper R and D support from government.
     In this way we can produce prosperous, socially and environmentally advantageous industries that will let us get a jump on the rest of the world.
     If anyone can show me how current policies are achieving this (sacking Jim Salinger, wiping out local government in Auckland, having an enquiry as whether climate change even exists??), please enlighten me.
   • Jared 2.3

     4 May 2009 at 4:33 pm

     Eddie, we are in the grip of a recession, Even under your beloved Obama with his out of this world stimulus package the unemployment rate in the US is expected to have hit 8.9% in April (8.5% In March), the highest in 25 years with over 600,000 jobs lost in March alone. Jobs will be lost, it is inevitable. Understand that we are in the bottom corner of the world with little to offer apart from agricultural exports and tourism, and with significant trade barriers. It is all well and good to say that the government is sitting on its hands, but apart from getting consumers spending via tax cuts, offering some relief for employees looking to lay off staff and increasing infrastructure spending, I fail to see how the government could do more. We simply don’t have the ability to launch a large scale stimulus package ala obama, something you obviously understand considering how critical the left have been surrounding any spending and the incurring of additional debt. So tell me, how would you get us out of this mess?
     • Zaphod Beeblebrox 2.3.1

       4 May 2009 at 4:56 pm

       There are always choices (how and where we tax, where we do and don’t spend our tax take, when we release money and for what). To date the efforts of this government to combat rising unemployment in my mind have been non-existent, despite the PR of the jobs Summit.
3. mickysavage 3

   4 May 2009 at 5:11 pm

   The last time that the NZ economy suffered such a dramatic loss was in the early 1990s. Remind me, who had just been elected to power back then?
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 3.1

     4 May 2009 at 5:18 pm

     Don’t think you could attribute either recession to the direct actions of the government of the day. But National did make a bad situation an awful lot worse in 1991 (thanks Ruth) and they do seem determined to repeat their mistake in 2009.
     • mickysavage 3.1.1

       4 May 2009 at 5:27 pm

       I can attribute the extent of the recession to the Nats’ actions.

       Both times they thought the solution was more market and less State. What they do not realise is that this was and is a significant contributor to the problem.
   • Jared 3.2

     4 May 2009 at 5:18 pm

     Remind me who was in power for the previous 2 terms? It would be nice to think that one government could have such a profound impact in such a short amount of time. Except, the economic down turn in the early 1990s was solely a result of economic reforms initiated by the Labour party, the champions of privatisation and radical free market reform.
     • r0b 3.2.1

       4 May 2009 at 5:21 pm

       So Jared you agree that privatisation and free market reform are very bad ideas?

       Good thing Labour expelled those people, who went on to form ACT…
     • Zaphod Beeblebrox 3.2.2

       4 May 2009 at 5:29 pm

       It seems insane that 2 decades after trying to repair the damage done back then AND in the wake of a financial crisis engineered by financial deregulation that we have ministers of a government who seem committed to repeating our suffering. And on top of that we don’t just have the ghost of Roger Douglas but the real thing sitting in parliament egging them on.
   • r0b 3.3

     4 May 2009 at 5:19 pm

     To be fair to National, in both cases (1990s and now) they came to power in difficult times. What defines them is how they deal with difficult times.

     In the 90s National of course brought us the black budget. Instead of raising taxes they slashed support for the most vulnerable members of the community.

     Signs are that National are preparing another very grim budget for later this month. I wonder if they will repeat the mistakes of the 90s…
4. Bill 4

   4 May 2009 at 7:45 pm

   If you really want to create jobs quickly, the easiest way is to expand the public sector by a couple of percent….hang on. Off the planet.

   Far better to downsize the public sector and rely on the ideologically driven shrinking capacity of the private sector.
5. gingercrush 5

   5 May 2009 at 12:30 am

   For those who want job creation schemes. In other words a fiscal stimulus package. Please provide me with actual evidence those countries that are successfully employing people. I don’t expect you to show me a country currently in recession that has lowered unemployment. But a country who did a stimulus package and are now seeing a slowing of unemployment. While you’re at it. How about providing evidence of countries that have done a big stimulus package and have seen their economy start to recover. I wish you luck on your search. You won’t find one of course.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS