- Date published:
1:10 pm, February 10th, 2009 - 13 comments
Categories: roger douglas - Tags: sockpuppet
After yesterday’s early release of Roger Douglas’ Orewa speech set for 6pm this evening one of our (bafflingly tenacious) readers has sent us this:
It seems this sockpuppet beat that sockpuppet to the punch.
There’s a great bit around 7 minutes in.
It’s great how the sock puppet sounds more and more bored as they go along.. love how the camera slips out of focus and the mouth moves but nothing comes out for a while near the end
The sockpuppet sounds strangely like Pauline Hanson, I don’t really know what else to say about that.
Interesting for a couple of minutes.
he’s looking better, has Roger had work done?
still boring as hell and completely deluded though.
That is a very scary graph. I have however got one question – how do we compare employment numbers (and therefore job losses via reduction in payroll numbers) between 1948 and 2009 with any meaningful context.
I don’t dispute it’s interesting and possibly significant however given it’s a change in “nonfarm” payroll numbers I wonder how we can make any conclusions about the recession over such a long period. Especially given the radical structural changes in what people do in terms of “non farm work” during that time.
burt you’re right that it’s hard to compare recessions using this stat, or to draw any conclusions beyond just the raw numbers of people losing jobs.
But even so I think there is some interesting stuff in there. It seems that job recovery has been slower in recessions post 1980, for whatever reason.
And yeah, it’s a scary image, that line is just plummeting.
I’d like to suggest that generally speaking (exclude 1960 which was the shallowest, or is that shallow ‘brown’ one 2001?) that the graph shows ‘generally’ each successive recession getting deeper and taking longer to recover.
In the context of changing employment behaviours, eg two income families becoming the norm over that time, combined with population growt. Increasing numbers effected and longer to recover is exactly what I would expect to see.
Having said all that, I’d put $1 on it that after this recession that -4000 ( – 4mil ) is not going to cut it. I just don’t know if that’s a consequence of way more people employed today than even in 1982 (or way more registered as employed) which was the previous ‘low point’ and if it actually tells us anything about this recession.
OH, I also don’t get why some of them don’t start at zero?
Here you go burt:
adjusted for population, good discussions in comments.
That is much more informative.