Unemployment jumps

Written By: - Date published: 7:38 am, May 5th, 2016 - 212 comments
Categories: jobs, national, unemployment - Tags: , , ,

Not good news:

Unemployment rises, wage growth subdued

The unemployment rate has jumped to 5.7 percent, with 144,000 out of work.

Official figures show the number of people out of work rose to 144,000, or 5.7 percent in the first three months of the year, compared with a revised rate of 5.4 percent in the previous quarter. …

Apparently this is the fastest increase in unemployment in more than 11 years. There has been an increase in the numbers employed, but it is overtaken by the increase in those seeking employment:

NZ unemployment jumps to 5.7 per cent despite strong job growth

Unemployment jumped in the first three months of the year, despite the number of new jobs being created is at its highest point in more than a year.

Figures from Statistics New Zealand showed that the rate of unemployment rose to 5.7 per cent, up from 5.3 per cent at the end of 2015.
…
Labour finance spokesman Grant Robertson said the high number of unemployed required a response in the Budget. “After eight years under National it is extraordinary that 144,000 New Zealanders are unemployed – almost 40,000 more than when they came to power. The Government has run out of excuses. It should be delivering by now.”

We’ve been on The Cusp of Something Special for years now, but still no Brighter Future. Perhaps we need government by evidence and effective policy rather than by slogan.

212 comments on “Unemployment jumps ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. D'Esterre 1
    5 May 2016 at 9:35 am

    I feel so sad for the unemployed. And so angry at the government’s signal failure to take a series of steps that would go some way toward ameliorating the situation.
    All these unemployed, yet this morning it’s reported that there’s a shortage of builders in Auckland, while at the same time, the unemployment rate there is higher than the national average! Now the building industry wants immigration rules relaxed further, so it can bring in builders from Mexico and wherever. What sort of looniness is this?

    • Draco T Bastard 1.1
      5 May 2016 at 10:21 am

      And I know builders getting out of the game as the government puts all the risk on the workers and takes it off of the main contractors. The builders see the extra costs, see the extra legal risks and see the money staying the same or going backwards and they simply leave.

      • adam 1.1.1
        5 May 2016 at 11:09 am

        All personal responsibility for workers.

        None for the inherited classes.

        Anyone else feel this is getting more and more like a really bad Dickens novel?

        A government in free fall, who have bleed the weakest for every cent, and now the middle class are one pay check away from poverty – they fool themselves every night their home is worth millions, but that bubble is going to burst.

        In the mean time we don’t talk about under-employment, the youth unemployment rates, the massive unemployment rates in Maori and Pacific Islanders.

        This issue needs a intersectionality discussion. It can not be done in isolation, people are hurting and there are very few alternatives being put forward. Bill (see below) raises some of the points we need to look at.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1
          5 May 2016 at 3:25 pm

          In the mean time we don’t talk about under-employment, the youth unemployment rates, the massive unemployment rates in Maori and Pacific Islanders.

          Or the increasing suicide rates brought about by those things.

      • Rocco Siffredi 1.1.2
        5 May 2016 at 12:20 pm

        Extra regulation increases costs?! That’s amazing, who would have ever expected that?

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2.1
          5 May 2016 at 3:23 pm

          It’s not that the costs are increasing that’s the problem but that all the risk is being placed on those that can’t afford it and not management or the business. you know, the people actually paid to cover these things.

      • Steve Withers 1.1.3
        6 May 2016 at 7:37 am

        The strategy of blaming the victims works very well for the government and its employees cronies. Why change, as long as they are high in the polls?

      • Steve Withers 1.1.4
        6 May 2016 at 7:37 am

        The strategy of blaming the victims works very well for the government and its employer cronies. Why change, as long as they are high in the polls?

      • Steve Withers 1.1.5
        6 May 2016 at 7:37 am

        The strategy of blaming the victims works very well for the government and its employer cronies. Why change, as long as they are high in the polls?

    • Jack Ramaka 1.2
      5 May 2016 at 5:38 pm

      Shame National did away with our Apprenticeship Training Schemes years ago – brainless idiots?

  2. Puckish Rogue 2
    5 May 2016 at 9:36 am

    http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_and_unemployment/LabourMarketStatistics_MRMar15qtr.aspx

    The unemployment rate remained at 5.8 percent in the March 2015 quarter (from a revised 5.8 percent in the December 2014 quarter), while the labour force participation rate reached an all-time high of 69.6 percent, Statistics New Zealand said today.

    http://stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_and_unemployment/LabourMarketStatistics_HOTPMar16qtr.aspx

    New Zealand’s labour force grows 1.5 percent, the largest quarterly growth since December 2004.

    Employment growth exceeds population growth over the quarter.

    The unemployment rate increased to 5.7 percent, from a revised rate of 5.4 percent last quarter.

    Wage inflation remains subdued.

    So just to let people know, its a 0.1% drop in unemployment from last year and the largest quarterly growth since 2004

    • Sabine 2.1
      5 May 2016 at 9:39 am

      and the other 40.000 people that have lost their jobs since 2008? Collateral damage? Pumpkins? hopeless kiwi blokes that can write nor read? or maybe new migrants? fidgets of imagination?

      • Lanthanide 2.1.1
        5 May 2016 at 9:59 am

        No, it’s not 40,000 people that have lost their jobs.

        It’s 40,000 people looking for jobs.

        The workforce participation has increased – eg more people have finished their tertiary education and are looking for their first job, or immigrants are coming into the country and looking for their jobs.

        • Graeme 2.1.1.1
          5 May 2016 at 12:01 pm

          And / or more mothers, carers, students or retired having to go out and get work to make ends meet.

          Also, how do these stats deal with the self employed, or do they tend to fall through the cracks?

          • Nessalt 2.1.1.1.1
            6 May 2016 at 9:00 am

            “how do these stats deal with the self employed, or do they tend to fall through the cracks?”

            It might seem absurd, but the definition of self employed is being employed by ones self

    • adam 2.2
      5 May 2016 at 9:41 am

      Wage inflation a term of dead beats, smug w*&nkers, and those who preform wholesale attacks on the poor.

      In the real world Puckish Rouge its called take home pay.

      I love how you pull up stats which this government has gone out of it’s way to manipulate.

      It’s obvious now you are in a bubble Puckish Rouge – one inspired by hate, and a loathing for the poor and the weak.

      I feel sorry for you, I really do. Try getting some humanity back – I could send you a copy of the Gospels. It might just infuse the love you need, because it is obviously missing.

      • Puckish Rogue 2.2.1
        5 May 2016 at 10:00 am

        I love how you disregard statistics (when it suits you of course) because it doesn’t fit the narrative

        • adam 2.2.1.1
          5 May 2016 at 10:27 am

          Again with the lies Puckish Rouge, I’ve always argued this piss poor national government stats around employments are weak and deliberately dishonest. So not just this case. Also I’m pretty sure I’ve never personally used state stats to make an a argument

          And I also said, as you like to lie/spin (at this point in history lie/spin is the same thing with you) so often, “stats which this government has gone out of it’s way to manipulate” Which for most reasonable people means I was talking about specifically about employment stats.

          But keep up the lies, and the enthralment you have with the deceiver.

          • Puckish Rogue 2.2.1.1.1
            5 May 2016 at 11:04 am

            Not sure how you can saying I’m spinning or lying when I copying and pasting straight off the stats website but each to their own I guess

            Just do me a favour and when Nationals returned to power in 2017 please don’t say anything like you don’t understand why, how could this happen etc etc

            Its very tedious and boring

            • adam 2.2.1.1.1.1
              5 May 2016 at 11:18 am

              “Just do me a favour and when Nationals returned to power in 2017 please don’t say anything like you don’t understand why, how could this happen etc etc”

              LOL, you don’t understand my politics at all. Sad man, not even trying, falling back to your smug little world of the beltway.

              On your lies, I pointed out your lie, when you said I had. So you could simply stop with the spin, Its very tedious and boring.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                5 May 2016 at 11:25 am

                Oh boy you really can’t see the wood for the trees can you

                • adam …
                  5 May 2016 at 12:14 pm

                  pot, kettle, black. Beltway

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    5 May 2016 at 12:25 pm

                    The difference is I’m seeing it in terms of the 2017 election, you seem to think that doesn’t matter

                    • reason …
                      5 May 2016 at 2:41 pm

                      The question for you puckish …… Is how do you suck judith collins cock???? ….. that must be a problem for you.

                      Her crime stats were real National government gems ……. They clearly showed her to be the most corrupt police minister we have ever had ………and her balls are bigger than yours.

                      Cheating may be winning to you …………. but it just looks like cock suckers cheating to those of us who do not have your golem crossed with a fair ground clown breeding .

                      Now go put wayne mapps veet smooth balls in your mouth and look after those who are better than you…..

            • lprent 2.2.1.1.1.2
              5 May 2016 at 9:02 pm

              Have a look at It in terms of full-time work hours. In the household employment survey.

              Somehow we have reduced total hours of work whilst increasing workforce participation. Would you care to explain how your government achieved that?

              • alwyn …
                5 May 2016 at 9:15 pm

                That sounds great doesn’t it.
                People don’t have to work at two or three jobs in order to get by.
                I thought you would be pleased. Some of the people here have been complaining about the hours people used to have to work in order to gain an adequate income. They will be cheering.
                No doubt Draco T Bastard will agree
                http://thestandard.org.nz/unemployment-jumps/#comment-1168652

                • Muttonbird …
                  5 May 2016 at 9:23 pm

                  Where’s the evidence the reduced hours are providing an adequate income?

                  Seems to me those on reduced hours and casualised work are not getting by as you put it.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  5 May 2016 at 9:24 pm

                  Are they being paid the same amount or more while working less?

                  I suspect that they’re being paid considerably less. Less than what the reduction in hours warrants.

                  • alwyn …
                    6 May 2016 at 9:42 am

                    I suppose we could look at someone on the minimum wage in 2008 and in 2016.
                    The minimum wage on 01/04/2008 was $12.00. On the same date in 2016 it is $15.25. That is a 27% increase.
                    In the same period the CPI, according to the RBNZ calculator, went up by 15%.
                    If you were earning the minimum wage on each of those dates your hourly earnings clearly went up by more than inflation and you could earn the same amount of money by working less hours.
                    About 9% less hours in fact for the same income.

                    • Macro …
                      6 May 2016 at 11:10 am

                      The CPI no longer measures the true cost of living in this country as (for instance) it no longer takes into account the full cost of housing.
                      I began my working career in the Research Branch of the Dept of Statistics working on the CPI. What was being calculated then – when an increase in the price of bread by a few cents could affect the CPI is no longer the case.
                      The CPI now measures what the “economists” euphemistically call “underlying inflation” it has little to do with the cost of living for ordinary people – although it is still sold as such.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      6 May 2016 at 11:10 am

                      And if IIRC the minimum wage in 1984 was about $5. If that had risen with inflation productivity the minimum wage would now be $35

                      Many moons ago I was an ADSL helpdesk person. I had a base income of $40k with monthly bonuses of $1k. Today that same job pays $35k and you don’t get bonuses.

                      This is what I mean by ‘considerably less’. It’ll be the same job but the pay would have gone down despite real productivity gains.

                    • alwyn …
                      6 May 2016 at 2:31 pm

                      @Macro
                      That isn’t how the Stats department or the RBNZ describe the CPI.
                      Housing is about 25% of the index.
                      Underlying or Core inflation is described as taking out things like oil prices.
                      @DTB
                      In fact the minimum wage was $2.50 in 1983 so I doubt the value of $5.00

                      However I don’t want to spend my afternoon debating the finer points of indexes or historical series. I only gave a simple view of how people could be better of while working less.

                • Macro …
                  5 May 2016 at 9:49 pm

                  Nincompoop!

                  People don’t have to work at two or three jobs in order to get by.
                  I thought you would be pleased.

                  That doesn’t follow at all!

                  If you were even semi-cognizant of the employment situation as it now exists in this god forsaken country you would know that employers mostly offer part time contracts of a few hours a week. There is no reference to them earning an adequate income! Far from it. If they can get extra part time employment they will take it but those who are “fortunate” to do so are few.

      • Nessalt 2.2.2
        6 May 2016 at 9:01 am

        In a macro sense it’s sensible to refer to the increase in individual take home pay as the inflation in wages.

        Only the economically illiterate think inflation is a bad thing.

    • dv 2.3
      5 May 2016 at 10:02 am

      0.1% WOW WOW WOW

      • Puckish Rogue 2.3.1
        5 May 2016 at 11:06 am

        You’d rather an increase?

        • dv 2.3.1.1
          5 May 2016 at 12:01 pm

          Nope sounds like noise to me.

          • Magisterium 2.3.1.1.1
            5 May 2016 at 12:31 pm

            That’s my reaction. While there has been a slight decrease in unemployment against the year-ago quarter it’s small and statistically is, as you say, noise.

            A 2% increase in people working is positive, presumably because immigration is up and there are more people in the country.

        • McFlock 2.3.1.2
          5 May 2016 at 12:17 pm

          I’d rather that the best spin you can come up with is something more than ‘~6% unemployment, today, yesterday and forever’.

          Because if the unemployment rate remains roughly constant, then that strongly indicates that it’s a structural problem and not the fault of the unemployed themselves. So treating the unemployed like shit and giving them fuckall to live on won’t produce an overall change in outcome, it’s just being a prick for the sake of being a prick. So benefits should be humane and accessible, not crumbs that bureaucrats make poor people jump through hoops to receive.

          • North 2.3.1.2.1
            5 May 2016 at 8:47 pm

            Disturbingly sad making your word picture there
            McFlock. Madly, some people cheer the cheap nastiness of it ! Sort of…..”What is this ‘humane’ you speak of ?”

          • Nessalt 2.3.1.2.2
            6 May 2016 at 9:05 am

            /facepalm

            “Because if the unemployment rate remains roughly constant, then that strongly indicates that it’s a structural problem and not the fault of the unemployed themselves”

            retard. cyclical fluctuation in unemployment is devastating for the economy. it prolongs recessionary periods and reduces growth periods. it’s also a sign of an imbalance in the power between workers and employers, in that employers have to much power.

            nice work on trying to sound intellectual just to beat the government up. do you wear fake glasses too?

            • McFlock 2.3.1.2.2.1
              6 May 2016 at 11:55 am

              That’s nice, dear.

              Does that mean that we need to give unemployed people less than the minimum, treat them like shit, and give them special cards so we can monitor and control how they spend their money in order to “incentivise” them to “make better decisions” and get a job? No it doesn’t, because unemployment is structural. We could have a nation of hardworking geniuses and 6% would still be unemployed under this system. Which was my point, as I made no comment as to whether fluctuations are good or bad, just what their absence indicates about how we should treat our worst-off.

              You need to work on your reading skills.

    • maui 2.4
      5 May 2016 at 10:10 am

      In 2004 net migration was under 20,000 people. This year we’ve had iver 3 times that, 60,000+ net migration. But of course this wouldn’t effect the labour force stats…

      • jcuknz 2.4.1
        6 May 2016 at 10:28 am

        I wonder what would happen if immigration was limited to just Kiwis returning to their homeland?
        A fanciful thought with the current government I know….. pity!

    • millsy 2.5
      5 May 2016 at 10:13 am

      Wage Inflation remains subdued.

      Which means no one is getting a payrise. Which is what you want.

    • alwyn 2.6
      5 May 2016 at 10:14 am

      You really are a hard character aren’t you Puckish Rogue?
      How dare you bring nasty little things like facts into the story.
      If Grant Robertson says the sky is falling everyone must line up and chant in unison “The sky is falling”.
      Grant cannot possibly be wrong can he?
      He is of course, but to say so would be like saying that the fat little fellow, the presumptive Emperor if Labour ever get back into office (and my MP incidentally), has no clothes.
      Get with the story! John Key is evil, John Key is evil, John Key is evil, …………
      That is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know.

      [BLiP: Pointless detail cluttering up a good comments thread. Moved to Open Mike.]

      • Puckish Rogue 2.6.1
        5 May 2016 at 10:31 am

        Sorry I forgot my place, I’ll recant myself and say 10 hail marys and prayer to the alter of Micky Savage (the politician just to be clear) for forgiveness

        • adam 2.6.1.1
          5 May 2016 at 10:43 am

          Oh look, a far right hate in.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.6.1.1.1
            5 May 2016 at 11:04 am

            +1

            • Puckish Rogue 2.6.1.1.1.1
              5 May 2016 at 11:08 am

              +10

              • adam …
                5 May 2016 at 11:11 am

                +100

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  5 May 2016 at 11:20 am

                  +1000

                  • McFlock …
                    5 May 2016 at 12:20 pm

                    +144,000 unemployed

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      5 May 2016 at 12:27 pm

                      + 2017 election

                    • McFlock …
                      5 May 2016 at 12:35 pm

                      -300,000 NZ kids in poverty

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      5 May 2016 at 12:56 pm

                      Invalid number, there aren’t even close to 300 000 kids living in poverty in NZ

                    • McFlock …
                      5 May 2016 at 1:13 pm

                      I thought you liked facts?

                      3200: number of kids each year with skin infections so bad they’re admittted to hospital.

                    • Macro …
                      5 May 2016 at 1:40 pm

                      400,000 New Zealanders live in “fuel poverty” meaning the cost of heating takes up more than 10% of their annual income
                      (figures from Otago University and BRANZ)

                    • Macro …
                      5 May 2016 at 1:43 pm

                      46% of homes suffer from condensation.

                      35% of homes have visible mould.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      5 May 2016 at 2:40 pm

                      Facts sure but first define poverty

                    • Robert []
                      6 May 2016 at 9:22 am

                      Define poverty!! Empathy & Compassion, oh that’s right those words are not in your Dictionary punish rouge.
                      That’s not a typo!

                    • Macro …
                      5 May 2016 at 3:15 pm

                      If you actually read the link you will see it right there!
                      Severe Poverty> 9% of children in NZ.
                      Income Poverty 305,000 children live in households where the total household income is less than 60% of the median wage.
                      The median income from wages and salaries across all jobs in June 2014 was about $45,000 a year (or $865 a week) before tax, according to a Statistics New Zealand income survey. This includes full and part-time jobs I’m sure you can do the maths and calculate the 60% of that.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 May 2016 at 4:07 pm

                      Facts sure but first define poverty

                      To roughly quote john Oliver, the poverty line is like the age of consent: if you feel the need to parse exactly where it is, then you’ve probably already done something very, very wrong.

                      We have tens of thousands of kids whose parents can’t afford wet weather gear for them. Thousands are admitted to hospital because they’re parents can’t afford healthy living conditions for them. Some die because of it. But hey, that’s cool, as long as national win the next election you don’t give a shit. Let ’em die.

                  • Macro …
                    5 May 2016 at 12:48 pm

                    New Zealand’s cold houses
                    1600 extra people die in winter – the highest excess winter mortality rate in the developed world. These deaths are mostly due to respiratory illness and cardiac arrest, attributed to cold temperatures.
                    (Otago School of Medicine)

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      5 May 2016 at 2:42 pm

                      Well from the other post about the healthy homes bill:

                      Thanks for that. I guess my issue is that this proposed bill seems to be quite vague.

                      I’m not actually against some type of minimum standard for rental accommodation as I well recall growing up in an uninsulated brick house that was mostly in the shade in Dunedin (I don’t recall any mold though)

                      But who decides the minimum and what exactly is the minimum in the first place?

                      I see a lot of fishhooks in this bill so I’m hoping the government will veto it and instead work with all parties to come up with a better bill

                    • Jack Ramaka …
                      5 May 2016 at 5:45 pm

                      Looks like some of these Chinamen that have bought cheap NZ homes are going to have to out lay some cash if they want to rent them out, however most of them are empty here in Auckland as they are just parking their cash here in Auckland Real Estate for the time being,in JK’s Auckland Housing Ponzi Scheme?

      • framu 2.6.2
        5 May 2016 at 12:11 pm

        wow alwyn – you really go for the over dramatic card every time dont you

        • alwyn 2.6.2.1
          5 May 2016 at 12:57 pm

          “over dramatic”?
          Don’t be silly dear boy.
          Over dramatic was Laurence Olivier playing Hamlet or Richard III.
          Now that was overdramatic. Bloody good films though.

      • alwyn 2.6.3
        5 May 2016 at 3:30 pm

        @BLiP
        I presume it is my, perhaps rather jocular, comment at 2.6 you are referring to when you suggest a comment is cluttering up the thread.
        Can you please assist me. If my comment is cluttering up the thread could you please tell me what this one is? I’ll just link to it. I have no intention of repeating the words.
        http://thestandard.org.nz/unemployment-jumps/#comment-1168720

    • AB 2.7
      5 May 2016 at 10:45 am

      In terms of creating jobs the economy has pretty much kept up with demographic change, i.e. immigration and natural population increase (or shifts in population makeup between young and old).
      So the percentage ‘seeking work’ is about the same, and the number in work has gone up.

      Nothing fundamental has changed – mostly just immigration-fuelled growth. The fact that “wage inflation” is low suggests that the proportion of national income going to labour is declining and the proportion going to capital is increasing. Most people are likely to be static or going backwards in terms of living standards – especially if they are caught by the downsides of immigration such as its effect on Auckland house prices and rents.

      Also it is likely the “official statistics” have a very relaxed definition of being “in work” – it is likely to include the grossly under-employed and the casualised.
      Anecdotally I know of middle-class, middle-aged victims of redundancies who won’t go near state agencies like the toxic WINZ, so they won’t be counted anywhere. I expect there are plenty of other groups like this.

      Basically National has what it wants:
      – fairly high unemployment to keep the lid on wage increases, but not so high that it provokes too much outrage and a call for change, and the official figures looking somewhat better than the reality.
      – national income increasingly captured by the owners of capital (business owners, property speculators) rather than employees
      – pervasive financial stress and fear among the lower orders to make sure they are obedient.

      Pretty much that trademark National Party combination of incompetence, corruption and malevolence. Thanks National – I’m lovin it.

      • Puckish Rogue 2.7.1
        5 May 2016 at 11:19 am

        – fairly high unemployment to keep the lid on wage increases, but not so high that it provokes too much outrage and a call for change, and the official figures looking somewhat better than the reality.

        – Don’t you mean unemployment fairly low

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate

        • AB 2.7.1.1
          5 May 2016 at 11:35 am

          No I don’t.
          You actually mean “comparatively low or middling internationally at the present time”.
          I was thinking “fairly high” in that just under 6% represents about 1 in 17 of my (and your) fellow citizens.
          You are making a comparative statement while I am making a more absolute ethics-based statement.
          If I was to make a comparative statement I might point back to what has been achieved in this country historically, at times anyway..

          • Puckish Rogue 2.7.1.1.1
            5 May 2016 at 11:43 am

            Yeah but that’s bit difficult, I mean any political party that compares itself to the full employment days when Britain subsidised NZ is on a hiding to nothing

            But its fair to say, at the moment, NZs unemployment rate is pretty good in comparison with other western countries so that statement of fairly high is a bit misleading

            • adam 2.7.1.1.1.1
              5 May 2016 at 12:18 pm

              More spin from the high priest of lies.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                5 May 2016 at 12:39 pm

                Go look at the link I posted and then tell me what I’m spinning, you simply don’t want to acknowledge anything that doesn’t correspond with your world view

                • adam …
                  5 May 2016 at 4:35 pm

                  Sad man you are just sad Puckish Rouge. Can’t even connect the dots without it being spoon feed. At least with a two year old there is a reason they can not make connections what you excess?

                  Your original post was full of spin, and you keep on doing it. And as an adult I’d ask you to look at what you have lied/spun. Then to say I don’t look outside my world view – is more than a bit rich, it just shows you are no Juvenal. Mind you the rest of your comments show us all that.

            • Draco T Bastard 2.7.1.1.1.2
              5 May 2016 at 2:20 pm

              Yeah but that’s bit difficult, I mean any political party that compares itself to the full employment days when Britain subsidised NZ is on a hiding to nothing

              Not really. We could easily have full employment again and be screaming out for more workers. All we’d have to do is actually develop our economy rather than whinging that it costs too much which is what we get from the RWNJs.

              But its fair to say, at the moment, NZs unemployment rate is pretty good in comparison with other western countries so that statement of fairly high is a bit misleading

              No, it’s actually quite accurate. It’s the comparison with others that’s misleading as it assumes that the other countries with higher unemployment have the correct amount of unemployment.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.7.2
        5 May 2016 at 11:23 am

        +1

      • Shifty 2.7.3
        5 May 2016 at 11:29 am

        Yes

      • jcuknz 2.7.4
        6 May 2016 at 4:25 pm

        If you believe that Thomas Pickety knows what he is writing about then it is inevitable that the money will go to those that already have it and unless we have realistic taxation of the higher levels of income it will continue short of WWIII or similar and who wants that to happen.
        I get rather amused? bored? with those over at KB who are for reduced taxation when I am pretty sure if the world adopted TP’s solution none of us would need to pay any income tax and the fools refuse to believe the fact that with moderate taxation of the 1% the 99% would not need to pay any.
        Trouble is the 1% are aided and abetted by financial brains to avoid paying even the very moderate taxes of today. To me the expression ‘scab’ has real meaning for them.

  3. Bill 3
    5 May 2016 at 9:42 am

    From a systemic perspective that would advocate for business as usual, rising unemployment is a bad thing.

    From a systemic perspective inclusive of climate change, it’s not such a bad thing. What is bad about it is, that instead of taking that freed up time and all that latent knowledge and labour to learn and adapt to what’s just down the line, all those unemployed will be channeled back into a lifestyle and types of work that are absolutely not we need; that contribute to an increasingly unrealistic and unsustainable future.

    • adam 3.1
      5 May 2016 at 10:00 am

      I agree with you in principle Bill, but in Auckland many unemployed are left to rot. No income support, poor housing, punished and harassed by work and income. Many who are young are just walking away from the system, and see crime or homelessness as the only option. I’ve spoken to some of these young men, they are smart, they don’t want to flip burgers for the next 30 years.

      Least we forget that many long term unemployed are generally disabled, who are being slowly ground down. Don’t you miss the days of outright eugenics, when the attacks were a little more open? (sarcastic question just in case anyone missed that) It seems a second wave of eugenics has hit this country, where a new war on the weak is being played out in a slow corporate beige way, we don’t march people off to the asylum any more – we just grind them down with pitiful incomes, and dislocation. Keeping people isolated and dis-empowered, with bland apologies, and sickening platitudes.

      This national government and my guess the next, will do nothing to address what you are talking about Bill. They are short sighted. Too involved in petty power politics, and too in love with money.

      • weka 3.1.1
        5 May 2016 at 10:12 am

        “I’ve spoken to some of these young men, they are smart, they don’t want to flip burgers for the next 30 years.”

        If we want full employment, someone has to do the shitty work. Alternatively, if we accept that less jobs and people having to work less is a good thing overall, how can the problems of those young men in Auckland be solved in another way?

        I agree re govt inaction, but I don’t think that leaves us powerless (I commented below).

        • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1
          5 May 2016 at 12:38 pm

          Alternatively, if we accept that less jobs and people having to work less is a good thing overall, how can the problems of those young men in Auckland be solved in another way?

          1. Bring back penal rates. Anything above 32 hours per week gets double pay and anything above 40 hours per week gets triple. This would also apply to contractors and people on salaries
          2. A UBI
          3. More automation so as to decrease the need for work

          • weka 3.1.1.1.1
            5 May 2016 at 12:42 pm

            Yes, and I also was thinking of solutions that don’t involve relying on the govt.

            • Puckish Rogue 3.1.1.1.1.1
              5 May 2016 at 1:13 pm

              Heresy!

            • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1.1.2
              5 May 2016 at 2:12 pm

              How are we going to get solutions without talking to each other and without some process to then implement them?

              Just to clarify: We are the government. The people in parliament aren’t although they like to think that they are. Of course, the big problem is that we’ve also been conditioned to believe that parliament is government.

        • Nic the NZer 3.1.1.2
          6 May 2016 at 8:32 am

          ‘If we want full employment, someone has to do the shitty work. Alternatively, if we accept that less jobs and people having to work less is a good thing overall, how can the problems of those young men in Auckland be solved in another way?”

          It would appear from the actual answers to unemployment survey questions that people can’t find the work flipping burgers either. It may be a shitty job but if it were available many would take it. The problem is not enough jobs are available.

          The solution is not to lament the fact there are not enough jobs but for the govt to actually purchase the available labour. It should probably be engaged with projects towards a sustainable economy in terms of work. Thats a much better outcome than unemployment. Its also a better outcome than a UBI which appears to do nothing about the composition of output.

          Trying to get this kind of change without the government is unlikely to happen. The private sector wont readily spend on such projects or create full employment on its own present incentives.

          • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.2.1
            6 May 2016 at 8:36 am

            The solution is not to lament the fact there are not enough jobs but for the govt to actually purchase the available labour. It should probably be engaged with projects towards a sustainable economy in terms of work. Thats a much better outcome than unemployment. Its also a better outcome than a UBI which appears to do nothing about the composition of output.

            These are important considerations.

            BTW I think a UBI will lead to workers having more free spouse, family and community time, which is inherently supportive of a sustainable society.

          • weka 3.1.1.2.2
            6 May 2016 at 12:56 pm

            The solution is not to lament the fact there are not enough jobs but for the govt to actually purchase the available labour. It should probably be engaged with projects towards a sustainable economy in terms of work. Thats a much better outcome than unemployment. Its also a better outcome than a UBI which appears to do nothing about the composition of output.

            WHat is composition of output?

            If I’m understanding you right, you think it’s better for people to be flipping burgers 40 hrs/wk than to have a UBI and flip burgers 20 hrs/wk. In the context of this sub thread we are considering how many jobs are not that useful for society and why should people be wage slaves to fulfull those jobs. In that context, a UBI is one obvious way out.

            • Nic the NZer 3.1.1.2.2.1
              6 May 2016 at 1:57 pm

              The composition of output is what gets produced. In the context of this thread its burgers. Maybe that can be shifted so its less burgers and more the management of pollution or operating composting toilets or teaching child care etc…

              What ever claims about the betterness of society will be hollow if the people flipping burgers 20 hours a week would rather be doing 40 due to their limited income. People who want fewer work hours dont raise the unemployment rate anyway. Thats a statistic about how much work people would like to have and where people want more of it i dont think its sensible to apply individual judgements about the good of that work to society. Especially if your not proposing alternative work be made available.

              • weka …
                6 May 2016 at 2:22 pm

                I have some concerns myself about calling certain kinds of work shitty or useless and have been thinking through how to discuss the concept without using pejoratives.

                But in a world of CC it’s more of an imperative to look at reducing consumption than it is to look at everyone being in full employment. People only need more work hours if they’re not being paid enough, or if they’re so tied into the consumerist culture that they see having more money as being critical. In those cases, there are solutions in addition to job creations. I’m not averse to job creation, I just think it needs to be jobs that serve society not neoliberalism, and serving society now has to include the environment. That’s as much about not creating fossil fuel and high consumption jobs as it is about creating jobs that do good environmental work.

                People who want fewer work hours dont raise the unemployment rate anyway. Thats a statistic about how much work people would like to have and where people want more of it…

                Myself, I think the main reason for creating jobs is to reduce poverty. But there are other ways of reducing poverty, and if those ways serve society in a CC world better, that’s what we should be doing. I really don’t care how unemployment gets measured if it’s still about serving the consuming imperative. I care about people and I care about the planet.

                • Nic the NZer …
                  6 May 2016 at 3:35 pm

                  That rather hangs on your definition of consumption actually. Consumption how its commonly defined is everything which gets brought which is not investment. Its possible also to relax the definition to include non purchased consumables. That includes of course a lot of stuff which is not harmfull to the environment. The definition of consumption which is appropriate for this discussion is not the one which falls out of talking about a consumerist society.

                  Its also worth noting that full employment can also mean more people contributing to investment towards (or operating) a sustainable economy.

                  A UBI does little to shift the society we have. Believing it will is wishful thinking.

                  • weka …
                    6 May 2016 at 5:11 pm

                    Actually this subthread is completely about not trying to solve employment issues by continuing a high consumption society (because of CC). That was the point of Bill’s comment, to put the unemployment crisis in the context of AGW.

                    “Its also worth noting that full employment can also mean more people contributing to investment towards (or operating) a sustainable economy.”

                    I disagree. We have never ever had a society where all able male and female adults have been in full employment. The more you expect people to work, the less society functions. A sustainable economy by definition values and counts the contributions of people who are not
                    in paid employment.

                    “A UBI does little to shift the society we have. Believing it will is wishful thinking.”

                    And asserting it won’t help is just an assertion.

                    • Nic the NZer …
                      6 May 2016 at 5:46 pm

                      So to sum up,

                      You cant conceive of a situation where employment contributes to anything much except driving high consumption lifestyles. And trying to get the significant amount of work done to address climate change will prevent society functioning. And the best thing people can do to address climate change will be to just accept their only role is to sit around on their meagre incomes and rather passively consume (hopefully very little). Society will obviously need to change its mindset and value their superior morality by not paying people to do this, thankyou very much.

                    • weka …
                      6 May 2016 at 6:54 pm

                      I don’t believe any of those things at all. Care to try again?

      • Bill 3.1.2
        5 May 2016 at 11:10 am

        but in Auckland many unemployed are left to rot.

        When the commons have been enclosed and everything that was once common is controlled by and for a minority, then we can rot or we can, where possible, apply energies to reclaiming our time and our life and our dignity. I know that’s not possible for many, but it is for some. And if some can do it, it may offer an alternative psychological space for others to step into or adopt.

        • adam 3.1.2.1
          5 May 2016 at 12:20 pm

          We are trying

        • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.2
          5 May 2016 at 12:40 pm

          Yep, privatisation of the commons has always resulted in the collapse of the society and always will.

          It is capitalism that is the failure.

    • weka 3.2
      5 May 2016 at 10:09 am

      This ^^^ (Bill @ 3.)

      A couple of things come to mind. The same old one about income. Just looked up the etymology of ‘income’ and it comes from Middle English (via Scots and Old Norse) meaning ‘arrival, entrance’. So we’re not even talking about money. We’re talking about people having the wherewithall to live a good and meaningful life and how that wherewithall comes to them.

      Which brings us to the second point, which is also a same old one. Which people would be willing to give up the new iphone or overseas trip if it meant they could work less. Or which people would be willing to not own their own home but would rent if rental housing was govt controlled and stable, if that meant they could work less? Or which people would give up a high consumption life if it meant they could work less? There are quite a few people doing that intentionally in various ways, and many more being forced into it, so perhaps we should be looking at how to improve those transitions and ways of accessing the wherewithall.

      Needless to say no NZ govt at this stage is going to move on this, so I’d see two possible paths. One is the one above where the focus is on getting creative with the systems we have that enable people to work less and live well. The other is getting more people thinking and talking about a different way of approaching this (pretty much what you have just done).

      Maybe we could also gather examples of where people are already doing these things?

      • Bill 3.2.1
        5 May 2016 at 11:01 am

        Something I’ve always found odd is that ‘everyone’ goes on about having a job and waxes about the dignity, meaning or purpose and what-not that having a job provides.

        They then commonly hanker for the weekend to arrive – for that next public holiday to come around – for that two weeks away on holiday…

        If having a job is so rewarding, then why is it that so many focus on temporary escapes or relief from it?

        Throw in the historical context that people initially railed against wage slavery and viewed it as not too different from chattel slavery and an absolute and fundamental attack on a persons dignity – that we were forced against our will into having to sell ourselves. After some generations of ‘normalisation’ it seems the underlying unease or resistance, although weakened is still there, and expressed by the desire to be in the weekend, on holiday or otherwise elsewhere (entertained, ‘smashed’ distracted…).

        When we claim back our time and fill it with useful and rewarding activity…

        That said, I suspect most people (and this thread’s a good example of it) will carry on having the wrong discussion for some time yet 😉

        • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1
          5 May 2016 at 11:12 am

          Practically every working stiff out there would like the option to retire a few years ahead of schedule. And why not.

          • weka 3.2.1.1.1
            5 May 2016 at 11:53 am

            hmm, wage slavery at 40+ hrs a week so one can retire at 60 vs a life of less work and more family/recreation/meaning? I think until more people are aware of the latter option as viable then it’s moot whether retiring early or not is a motivator.

            • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1.1.1
              5 May 2016 at 12:05 pm

              Advocating for “a life of less work”?

              Weren’t you just below complaining to me that more people should be working more, and that people had a right to expect more jobs?

              • weka …
                5 May 2016 at 12:13 pm

                No, I wasn’t. You made that up in your head instead of listening to what I am really saying*. I’m always happy to clarify if you care to ask.

                *you know me well enough to know I don’t support the capitalist paradigm. And if you can’t remember that, then just look at the comments I have made in this thread, including the one you replied to. Pull your head in mate.

        • weka 3.2.1.2
          5 May 2016 at 11:18 am

          Oh well, I guess it’s you and me in the meantime then 😆

          I know some people genuinely experience a loss of sense of self or self-esteem if they aren’t working. For some of those people I think it’s because of the socialisation that you have to be in paid employment to be contributing to society. For others, they genuinely have to be doing something (you know those people who get stressed if they’re not active), but that doesn’t ahve to be paid work (they still have to pay the bills though). Others get depressed, and I think some of that is from those around them all being so focussed on the job and the mortgage/rent/getting ahead that there is no support to feel ok about other ways of living our lives.

          “Throw in the historical context”

          What time and place are you thinking of?

          • Bill 3.2.1.2.1
            5 May 2016 at 11:58 am

            Time and place?

            Well, in the US we’re probably looking at right up to the first ‘Red Scare’…around the time of WW1. In Europe, we’re similarly looking at the end of the 19thC / beginning of the 20th.

            On the socialisation front – yes, but like I commented, there is that odd phenomena whereby it seems people generally don’t want to be doing their job. Y’know, when people are made redundant, and bearing in mind financial strains, it’s usually the loss of social context that hits hardest, not the loss of the job per se. To a large extent workmates and workplace cultures have substituted for community. It’s a shabby and tenuous, or even relatively vacuous substitute, but it’s all that many people have.

            • weka 3.2.1.2.1.1
              5 May 2016 at 12:18 pm

              Good point about community replacement. Another odd aspect of that is the extent to which people who aren’t working traditional job structures won’t form community. Think beneficiaries for instance. Something else going on there too.

              Some people do of course like their jobs. Would be interesting to know the %.

              “Well, in the US we’re probably looking at right up to the first ‘Red Scare’…around the time of WW1. In Europe, we’re similarly looking at the end of the 19thC / beginning of the 20th.”

              Ok, I was wondering about the industrial revolution too, and the Luddites. I’m guessing most NZers wouldn’t know about your examples or mine. Maybe what they teach of history in schools has changed, but I didn’t learn any of it.

              • Colonial Viper …
                5 May 2016 at 12:21 pm

                Some people do of course like their jobs. Would be interesting to know the %.

                Yes indeed however even people who like their jobs generally don’t want to be doing them 6 days a week.

                • weka …
                  5 May 2016 at 12:40 pm

                  True.

                • jcuknz …
                  6 May 2016 at 4:59 pm

                  For most of my working life I was very lucky that I was in some form or other doing what I enjoyed. true I had a few bad patches but not for long. I looked forward to weekends and holidays because I had other strong interests. That later bit is the crux of early retirement … are you going to go moulder away in front of the TV getting on your wife’s nerves? or have you organised a hobby or unpaid activity to use with that free from work time.
                  One of the problems with retirement at any age is the drop in income and perhaps health which prevents one from those things one wants to.
                  My son loves his work, looking after sick folk, but organizes his employment to permit him to have time off to travel places, climb mountains etc. But society is generally stuck in five working days mon-fri and most like myself think that is the best way, except I have my doubts now at the end of my life.
                  With UBI I see the surplus population being employed perhaps three day a week sharing jobs in a six day outfit.
                  It is either that or birth control IMO

              • Draco T Bastard …
                5 May 2016 at 2:38 pm

                Another odd aspect of that is the extent to which people who aren’t working traditional job structures won’t form community. Think beneficiaries for instance. Something else going on there too.

                Beneficiaries simply can’t afford to and that’s purposeful. The beneficiary rates were purposefully cut back in the Mother of all Budgets to be less than enough to engage with society.

                Having a working society is dangerous to the capitalists.

                • weka …
                  5 May 2016 at 4:09 pm

                  Hmm, maybe we’re talking about different kinds of community. It doesn’t take money to get together.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    5 May 2016 at 9:51 pm

                    Yes it does. Money for the transport, money for the food, money for the whichever activity you’ve decided to engage in, the list goes on.

                    I go for rides with my family most weekends. That’s not free. I’ve got to buy parts for the bike to maintain it, coffee and food (you try going for a 50km ride without having a break for lunch), that drink on my bike isn’t water as I need to replace salts and sugars, and I need clothes to wear or do you think I should go sky clad?.

                    • weka …
                      6 May 2016 at 7:02 pm

                      How long have you spent on a benefit? Because if lack of money stopped us from doing everything, we’d all have slit our wrists a long time ago. Yes, lack of money stops us from taking party fully in society in the ways that other people do, but it’s not an absolute. I’ve known plenty of beneficiaries that live within walking distance and they still don’t form community. Like I said, there is something else at play as well.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      6 May 2016 at 7:47 pm

                      How long have you spent on a benefit?

                      Quite a bit actually. I’ve variously been in the top 5%, dropped down to absolute poverty, back up to the top 5%, down again and I expect I’ll be back up there in a year or so.

                      My experience is…varied.

                      Because if lack of money stopped us from doing everything, we’d all have slit our wrists a long time ago.

                      I was suicidal when I was 14 living with my abusive father just after my mother died. After that I have a generally sunny disposition – it really couldn’t get any worse.

                      You look for things to do that exist within budget and that really doesn’t include a whole lot of socialising. You simply can’t afford to for one but there’s also the social stigma of being a beneficiary and the psychological damage that that causes.

                      I’ve known plenty of beneficiaries that live within walking distance and they still don’t form community.

                      Perhaps they don’t know each other or even of each other. See above.

                      Like I said, there is something else at play as well.

                      Yeah, there’s been the concerted effort of the RWNJs to destroy our society for one. Again see above.

          • Bill 3.2.1.2.2
            5 May 2016 at 11:58 am

            Time and place?

            Well, in the US we’re probably looking at right up to the first ‘Red Scare’…around the time of WW1. In Europe, we’re similarly looking at the end of the 19thC / beginning of the 20th.

            On the socialisation front – yes, but like I commented, there is that odd phenomena whereby it seems people generally don’t want to be doing their job. Y’know, when people are made redundant, and bearing in mind financial strains, it’s usually the loss of social context that hits hardest, not the loss of the job per se. To a large extent workmates and workplace cultures have substituted for community. It’s a shabby and tenuous, or even relatively vacuous substitute, but it’s all that many people have.

        • maui 3.2.1.3
          5 May 2016 at 11:47 am

          That sums it up for me too Bill. I think a lot of people go through phases of why am I doing this job. Is this really fufilling me? For me its the realisation that most paid work is of no benefit to society, whether you’re selling crap that people don’t really need or involved in paper shuffling, most of it doesn’t really help anyone apart from providing somebody’s wage. We seemed to be sucked into this culture whereby aslong as you can afford a meal out during the week and can get pissed on the weekend with your mates, you can pretty much forget about what you’re forced to do every weekday.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1.4
          5 May 2016 at 2:26 pm

          How an economy works

          So, there is as a matter of fact respect and well being from having a job and people will want to do them both because the society finds it useful and because they find it challenging (I, personally, have no plans to retire – that would simply be boring). The problem is working to make others rich – Capitalism in other words.

          • Bill 3.2.1.4.1
            5 May 2016 at 2:47 pm

            there is as a matter of fact respect and well being from having a job

            No there’s not. Self respect and dignity are assaulted and undermined in job scenarios. It’s absolutely abhorant, this notion that it’s ‘okay’ or ‘expected’ that people should sell their mind, body and time for some $$$.

            Just because you’re okay with it and garner some sense of self respect and/or well being from having a job, doesn’t make that possible effect a fact – it’s just a possibility. And there are a whole raft of factors that come into play and determine whether a job is a positive or negative experience – eg, socialisation (conditioning), expectation, availability or otherwise of alternative (imagined or real) routes to well being, respect etc

            • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1.4.1.1
              5 May 2016 at 4:28 pm

              It’s absolutely abhorant, this notion that it’s ‘okay’ or ‘expected’ that people should sell their mind, body and time for some $$$.

              I didn’t say that they should. In fact, what I said was: The problem is working to make others rich – Capitalism in other words.

              And my point still stands. The community only works because we work together to support each other. We’re not individuals all living alone on our little islands not affected by or affecting others although the libertarians and RWNJs certainly seem to think that we are.

              • Bill …
                5 May 2016 at 5:02 pm

                My bad. But, y’know, if you’re going to talk about ‘jobs’ and what they are and what they do, then I’m going to assume you’re actually talking about jobs. Work, on the other hand – totally different kettle of fish.

  4. Wensleydale 4
    5 May 2016 at 9:53 am

    Don’t you understand? The something special is a “low wage economy” where people have to hold down multiple jobs just to pay the rent and feed their kids. The problem is obviously one of communication. National’s PR boffins simply failed to clarify that the “something special” would only be special for a select few in society. For everyone else, it’s a relentless carousel of misery and despair. I’m sure they all feed dreadful about that and will endeavour to do much better next time. Probably.

    • Colonial Viper 4.1
      5 May 2016 at 12:09 pm

      “National’s PR boffins simply failed to clarify that the “something special” would only be special for a select few in society.”

      This is the brilliance with National’s PR. They are always talking to their core audience. The rest of us are just eavesdroppers. And why would they take the effort to talk to the eavesdroppers.

  5. NoThanks 5
    5 May 2016 at 10:05 am

    Low skilled job will continue to disappear.

    While some professional positions still cannot be filled and people have to headhunt from overseas. Just recently I have seen team executive and a professional consultant being air-lifted to Auckland from Sydney. Want jobs? Get some professional skills: advanced maths / stats + engineering / finance knowledge + scripting language skills in Python, C++, VBA and SQL

    • Draco T Bastard 5.1
      5 May 2016 at 2:43 pm

      While some professional positions still cannot be filled and people have to headhunt from overseas.

      If that was the case, which it really isn’t, then we should be encouraging our people to learn those skills rather than importing them. Importing them doesn’t do anything for NZ unless it’s simply to teach those skills.

      Of course, doing that would mean much more support for tertiary education and students. As it stands someone on the unemployment benefit who would like to get more skills can’t actually afford to do so.

  6. save NZ 6
    5 May 2016 at 10:11 am

    But every time I turn on the TV all I hear about are ‘skill shortages’.

    Or is the “skill shortages” propaganda to make excuses for the crazy amount of lazy immigration that has occurred under National.

    Bill English thinks young Kiwis are ‘hopeless’.

    But maybe the employers are ‘too picky’ or maybe ‘too lazy’ to actually invest in training someone or giving someone a go. But also there are less jobs because less people have money to spend. It is all going on necessities as NZ wages are just not keeping pace for locals. In addition if you are told you are hopeless, have a truck load of debt after studying, but can be fired without notice and expected to work for minimum wages with no training, maybe you feel disillusioned and start opting out of society?

    If National was worried about skill shortages did they stop funding all the trades and night classes and increased fees at tertiary institutions?

    You have to wonder with TPP about to make an estimated 6000 people unemployed in NZ alone, what the F is going on? Who benefits, apart from the .1%? Certainly not the farmers who seem to be in a pickle under the Natz. Seems the China free trade was going good under Labour but turned sour for farmers when the Natz got in, and the started selling our farms rather than our milk. Roll up, roll up, free tax haven trust with every purchase, no questions asked our OIA just will rubber-stamp any purchase and we keep no records of IRD numbers or nationality of purchasers. No doubt some serious scrambling going on to try to say this is not happening, just like we heard for years (and still do) 67,000 new arrivals a year has nothing to do with the property boom in Auckland or the fact that one of our biggest exports now is ‘transnational profits’. Yep, fleece the Kiwis and send the profits offshore, sounds like a winner economically. sarc. Only the policy is killing local jobs. I don’t have a problem with transnational companies if they create jobs, but the new arrivals in town aka Serco seem to be taking work, while killing jobs or making wages lower and services poorer….

    Outsourcing to low wages service companies like Serco and Compass is goodbye jobs, hello NZ profits heading offshore….

    • NoThanks 6.1
      5 May 2016 at 10:15 am

      Skills shortage is real. There are simply not enough people with degrees which encompass advanced mathematical and programming skills in NZ while unskilled labour is oversupplied.

      • save NZ 6.1.1
        5 May 2016 at 10:40 am

        @No Thanks, Our tertiary institutions have become geared to educate other countries youth to get money, when no longer enough comes from the government. Obviously those graduates go home afterwards or stay in NZ, but with the absence of research and innovation, there are few jobs.

        And our own talent, are full of debt from student loans, so need to find well paid work. And that seems to be overseas based.

        Lose lose as usual with the government policy.

        How about instead of National funding Sky City and Scenic Hotels they actually spend the money for our own NZ based research and start ups. And KEEP the funding going, so that people have time to get results not spend all their time trying to writing status reports and blowing their budgets on middle people, just someone running it, and talent… Not cronies, there is talent in NZ, but it is under-utilised.

        • NoThanks 6.1.1.1
          5 May 2016 at 11:00 am

          Education is one of biggest export in NZ, the amount of spaces for local students are relatively fixed and separated from the admission of international students. We earn tons of money from these foreign students. Meanwhile, I really think admitting a failed student who hasn’t got a good mix of A’s and B’s in Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) to engineering or actuary is a waste of time, and thus increasing the number of students at engineering school at UoA from 500 to 1000 doesn’t resolve skill shortage, it only damages the reputation of its graduates.

          Education is not free in UK, Australia, USA, Canada and South Africa and most Asian countries, from where most of the expats are coming. It shouldn’t be free, there’s no need to fund students who want to learn ancient greek to read useless junk written by Plato and Plutarch. It should be subsidised as it is right now.

          In terms of getting a job, I agree most of the unis don’t provide enough info about how to get a job effectively, I graduated in 2010, I didn’t become very proficient in professional interview after I wasted about four interviews with some big shot corporates which many from my discipline would like to get into, especially that I got my internship thru connection. But getting a job is like building a business relationship, it is a skill which is extremely useful and it’s imperative to learn to art of nurturing a professional relationship, which some people simply don’t have.

          • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.1
            5 May 2016 at 12:17 pm

            Meanwhile, I really think admitting a failed student who hasn’t got a good mix of A’s and B’s in Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) to engineering or actuary is a waste of time, and thus increasing the number of students at engineering school at UoA from 500 to 1000 doesn’t resolve skill shortage, it only damages the reputation of its graduates.

            That’s a pretty one dimensional approach. Where’s your evidence that you need a mix of As and Bs to do well in engineering or actuarial studies?

          • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.2
            5 May 2016 at 12:19 pm

            But getting a job is like building a business relationship, it is a skill which is extremely useful and it’s imperative to learn to art of nurturing a professional relationship, which some people simply don’t have.

            Great advice, for those going for a job to get them on track to become a 1-percenter.

            • McFlock 6.1.1.1.2.1
              5 May 2016 at 12:28 pm

              what, you think that plumbers and electricians don’t build relationships with each other?

              Hell, even in hospo I scored jobs because one manager asked another manager if they knew any decent staff, and my name came up. And that’s a very common way of starting the recruitment process in small businesses.

          • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1.3
            5 May 2016 at 2:58 pm

            Meanwhile, I really think admitting a failed student who hasn’t got a good mix of A’s and B’s in Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) to engineering or actuary is a waste of time,

            Except that it’s not. Question why they don’t have A’s and Bs because it probably has to do with the teaching rather than the student.

            And from what I’ve heard the CIE isn’t that great either. People who pass that remember the facts and formulas that they need to remember to pass the exams but can’t actually think how to apply them.

            Education is not free in UK, Australia, USA, Canada and South Africa and most Asian countries, from where most of the expats are coming.

            And they’re failing just like we are.

            It shouldn’t be free, there’s no need to fund students who want to learn ancient greek to read useless junk written by Plato and Plutarch.

            It’s not free even when the student is fully supported and there’s no fees. The students pay for it through their taxes from the increased wealth that their education has brought to the country.

            And there’s nothing wrong or useless about knowing history. Did you know that Plato was a supporter of slavery because the economy wouldn’t survive without it? Hmm, we get similar stupid arguments from the RWNJs about things like protecting the environment.

            But getting a job is like building a business relationship, it is a skill which is extremely useful and it’s imperative to learn to art of nurturing a professional relationship, which some people simply don’t have.

            So, what you’re saying is that people have to conform to what a small sector of society wants?

        • Shifty 6.1.1.2
          5 May 2016 at 11:38 am

          Need more R&D. that would at least be a step towards engaging some of that under-utilised talent languishing behind spreadsheets and brooms, producing absolutely nothing of value.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.3
          5 May 2016 at 2:48 pm

          How about instead of National funding Sky City and Scenic Hotels they actually spend the money for our own NZ based research and start ups. And KEEP the funding going, so that people have time to get results not spend all their time trying to writing status reports and blowing their budgets on middle people, just someone running it, and talent… Not cronies, there is talent in NZ, but it is under-utilised.

          That’s how the US built up it’s industry and R&D capabilities and how it supports them still. It wasn’t the ‘free-market’ that did that but long term government support (The Entrepreneurial State bu Mariana Mazzucato).

        • Colin Espiner 6.1.1.4
          6 May 2016 at 11:16 am

          Save NZ, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, neither the National Party nor the Government of New Zealand has given SKYCITY a brass razoo. On the contrary, SKYCITY gives the Government approximately $180 million a year in tax and pays about the same again in wages. It’s also spending $700 million building a convention centre and hotel.

          As I’ve said before on this blog, continuing to misrepresent this does not make it true.

          Regards

          Colin Espiner
          GM Communications
          SKYCITY Entertainment Group

          • left for dead 6.1.1.4.1
            6 May 2016 at 11:47 am

            Mr Espiner;
            It’s a shame your not a broken record it would save us having to smirk so much that we cleaning up the coffee spills, as for that entertainment group you PR for,

            SKYCITY gives the Government approximately $180 million a year in tax .

            that is what you are oblige to pay,with all the fiddling. Would you like not too have a wage bill, perhaps you could start with your self, now fu k off and do some work, troll.

            • jcuknz 6.1.1.4.1.1
              7 May 2016 at 10:54 am

              While the government has not given SKY any money I gather they have granted gaming machine licenses to raise money from the gullible seeking instant riches. Not sure which is worse.

  7. Jenny Kirk 7
    5 May 2016 at 10:13 am

    I also think there may be “hidden” unemployed people – those who are older, been made redundant and are reliant on their partner’s income and/or early superannuation and altho qualified – some of them with those skills NoThanks has outlined above at 5 – don’t get a look in because they’re over 58. I know several men in this situation. And that they’ve applied for umpteen jobs they could do standing on their collective heads …. but still don’t get anywhere.

    These guys don’t get unemployment benefit because of their partner’s income.
    So they don’t get counted in the stats, but they’re still jobless.

    • adam 7.1
      5 May 2016 at 10:41 am

      Many disabled people fall into this category Jenny Kirk. A case study I can talk about. A person who was injured at work they were 55, the road to rehabilitation was denied them by obfuscation by ACC.

      So they get to 60, and finally a health department funded recovery programme will help them manage, their now chronic condition. Have to say it was with the help of a very good electoral office staff, who were just wonderful.

      The workforce is now a pipe dream, so partner does 45 hour weeks and they are not registered as unemployed, they finally have got a disability allowance, and some accommodation supplement – which helps. I personally have seen their SWIFT, and other work and income pages – what was there is they are not registered as unemployed. They marked down as partner supported.

    • alwyn 7.2
      5 May 2016 at 10:42 am

      The numbers being quoted are from the Household Labour Force Survey.
      This has nothing to do with whether a person gets the unemployment benefit. It is a random sample of people, who remain in the sample group for 2 years and are polled every quarter. You are classed as in the Labour Force if you would accept a job if offered one. You are classed as employed if you worked more than an hour or so in the last week. At least you were when I was in their sample.
      It doesn’t matter in the slightest whether you would be entitled to a benefit or not.

      I was on it a few years ago. As I remember it there were a large number of questions you had to answer. It was very quick for me as once I said I would not accept a job if offered one they jumped over the next 100 questions or so.

      • framu 7.2.1
        5 May 2016 at 12:16 pm

        “You are classed as employed if you worked more than an hour or so in the last week. ”

        be interesting to see how much of the stats are in this low hours range

        working for 1 hour a week is technically employed – but its a bit of a dodge for the stats that come out of it

  8. save NZ 8
    5 May 2016 at 10:28 am

    And this is how it ends…

    “The 1 percent unleashed Trump: Savage capitalism has brought us to the brink of apocalypse
    Wages have flattened, and the wealth gap has become an unbridgeable chasm. America was ripe for a populist uprising”

    http://www.salon.com/2016/05/04/the_1_percent_unleashed_trump_savage_capitalism_has_brought_us_to_the_brink_of_apocalypse_partner/

  9. save NZ 9
    5 May 2016 at 10:30 am

    And now people are expected to work for free….

    Stop working for free: “Why would any self-respecting writer put up with that?”
    Salon talks to the author of “The Myth of Meritocracy” about labor, class, HuffPo and not being paid for work

    http://www.salon.com/2016/05/03/stop_working_for_free_why_would_any_self_respecting_writer_put_up_with_that/

  10. The Chairman 10
    5 May 2016 at 10:38 am

    With record household debt once again fueling growth, there is no room for complacency.

  11. Colonial Viper 11
    5 May 2016 at 11:19 am

    Doesn’t Grant Robertson realise that NZ has been adding tens of thousands to the population every year. Many of whom are working age immigrants.

    So for unemployment to be up 44,000 in the last 8 years – during which NZ’s population has risen by more than 300,000 people – is a pretty sleepy indictment.

    If anything, it confirms that National has been holding the ship reasonably steady through various financial crises and a global slow down, although there is room for improvement on the employment front because National is simply not spending enough.

    English could easily fix this by spending an additional $1B pa into the economy, which would bring unemployment back down.

    • weka 11.1
      5 May 2016 at 11:57 am

      Or, people have an expectation that the economy will grow as the population does and that equates to an increase in jobs. Not an unreasonable expectation if you believe in capitalism.

      You could also compare the increases in population vs decreases in unemployment during Labour’s last 3 terms. How was that?

      Using the recession as an excuse is too easy.

      • Colonial Viper 11.1.1
        5 May 2016 at 12:02 pm

        So you want a growing economy now?

        350,000 new people and only 44,000 extra unemployed – doesn’t that suggest plenty of job growth?

        Using the recession as an excuse is too easy.

        So this current global recession is no big deal then? The down turn in exports from China and the downturn in consumer activity in the USA no big deal then?

        • weka 11.1.1.1
          5 May 2016 at 12:09 pm

          “So you want a growing economy now?”

          Don’t be stupid.

          “350,000 new people and only 44,000 extra unemployed – doesn’t that suggest plenty of job growth?”

          That would depend on whether you see 44,000 extra unemployed as an issue.

          “So this current global recession is no big deal then?”

          Again don’t be stupid.

          “The down turn in exports from China and the downturn in consumer activity in the USA no big deal then?”

          I’m pretty sure you will always be able to find excuses for National if you want to.

          • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.1.1
            5 May 2016 at 12:13 pm

            Just pointing out that the left doesn’t have a coherent narrative. It is still trying to sell 20th century virtues which are killing our planet.

            More employment, more growth, more people driving to work every morning.

  12. Steve Alfreds 12
    5 May 2016 at 11:55 am

    And unfortunately with this government you won’t see the rate of unemployment drop below %5 because it helps maintain a cheap pool of labour – it’s ideological. That’s despite the fact we currently have very little inflation. The non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU).

    http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/non-accelerating-rate-unemployment.asp

  13. Steve Alfreds 13
    5 May 2016 at 12:06 pm

    Of course it is. Under Clark they got unemployment as low as 3.4% despite the protests from Treasury and the sky didn’t fall in.

    • Colonial Viper 13.1
      5 May 2016 at 12:15 pm

      You need accelerating levels of debt pushing money into the economy to get unemployment that low. And that’s what Cullen was fine with. Accelerating levels of private debt.

      • The Chairman 13.1.1
        6 May 2016 at 12:05 pm

        “And that’s what Cullen was fine with. Accelerating levels of private debt.”

        With record debt once again fueling growth, it seems English is fine with it too.

  14. Kevin 14
    5 May 2016 at 12:16 pm

    Artificially high unemployment is SOP for National governments.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00023.htm

  15. International Rescue 15
    5 May 2016 at 1:39 pm

    “After eight years under National it is extraordinary that 144,000 New Zealanders are unemployed – almost 40,000 more than when they came to power.”

    1. NZ’s population as at June 2008 was 4,268,600 (http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/SubnationalPopulationEstimates_HOTP30Jun08/Commentary.aspx). Today it is 4,685,415 (http://www.stats.govt.nz/tools_and_services/population_clock.aspx), an increase of 416,815. A significant part of this growth is people returning/migrating to NZ because of favourable economic conditions.

    2. Some quotes from http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/79599568/unemployment-jumps-to-57-per-cent-despite-job-growth:

    “”The underlying detail of today’s report was certainly strong, and stronger than expected,” Westpac senior economist Anne Boniface said.”

    “ANZ senior economist Philip Borkin said the release of the household labour force survey showed the job market was in “reasonable health” with unemployment trending lower, and solid growth in the number employed.”

    “ASB chief economist Nick Tuffley said that the increase in the number employed was stronger than expected, but so was the rise in the number of people seeking to participate in the job market.”

    • Chuck 15.1
      5 May 2016 at 4:41 pm

      I think Grant Robertson is relying on us the voters, not being able to comprehend that the population has not stayed static for the last 7 -8 years!! your post lays it out clearly IR.

      To be fair to the opposition, they had to make it look bad in some way…

      • Colonial Viper 15.1.1
        5 May 2016 at 6:29 pm

        I regret giving a dickhead like IR the attack line on Labour, but that’s basically it. NZ’s population has increased by 400,000 or so over 8 years, while unemployment has increased by 40,000 or so, over 8 years.

        And I don’t see any plan from a neoliberal market driven Labour which would create 40K jobs. It’s not the job of government to hire people, is it?

        • McFlock 15.1.1.1
          5 May 2016 at 6:42 pm

          A ten percent increase in population against a forty percent increase in unemployment.

          IR is full of shit.

          • International Rescue 15.1.1.1.1
            5 May 2016 at 10:13 pm

            So the economists I quoted are wrong?

            Your Labour party line is as bad as Robertson’s. Given the GFC, it is more pertinent to compare NZ’s employment rate with other OECD nations. You can see see the comparisons here http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=36324. NZ has the 9th lowest unemployment rate in the oECD, well below the OECD total of 6.558, the EU of 8.867, and the Euro area at 10.333. NZ’s job generation record is nothing short of remarkable.

            • McFlock 15.1.1.1.1.1
              5 May 2016 at 10:21 pm

              According to economists, the christchurch earthquake was a good thing because of all the reconstruction work adding to GDP.

              But according to the stat you provided, unemployment numbers increased ~40% but the population only increased ~10%. Polish that turd.

              • International Rescue …
                6 May 2016 at 11:58 am

                NZ is doing very well comparable to the OECD totals. And people are voting with their feet, coming here in droves. Polish that!

              • McFlock …
                6 May 2016 at 12:39 pm

                Just to clarify: now that you’ve realised that your initial bullshit about population growth was irrelevant, you’re hoping we’ll not notice that you’ve abandoned that topic and moved onto a completely different set of stats.

                Fuck off.

              • Lanthanide …
                6 May 2016 at 12:57 pm

                Not sure what point you’re trying to make, McFlock, the fact that it’s 40% vs 10% by itself isn’t particularly interesting.

                If the population had increased by 10%, but unemployment remained exactly the same, then it would mean proportionally enough jobs had been created to not move the needle even though the population increased.

                But having the population grow by X amount, and the employment fall just short of accommodating that growth, means unemployment has gone up.

                But the relative 10% vs 40% is misleading, because the 40% was off a much lower base.

                For example, imagine unemployment was previously 1,000 people, and the population was 1,000,000. Then the population grew to 2,000,000 and the unemployment went to 5,000 people.

                The population growth would be 100%, and the unemployment growth would be 400%. Yes, relatively the unemployment growth at 400% is worse than 100%. But as far as actual results go, it’s actually not bad and could easily be much worse.

                • McFlock …
                  6 May 2016 at 1:10 pm

                  The point was that IR brought up the population count as a response to the basic unemployment count, but that this is a red herring because the rate based on that population count still increased.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    6 May 2016 at 1:15 pm

                    In his comment at #15, he stated that population had gone up, but didn’t say that completely excused the rise in unemployment.

                    My argument would be: yes, unemployment has gone up, but so has the total population and total workforce participation rate. So overall, this is not bad news for the economy. Personally I would be hesitant to say it is good news, although that appears to be the opinion of most economists.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 May 2016 at 1:40 pm

                      lol yeah nah, he just randomly said the population has also risen. No implication from that…

                      More people are in the country, more people are at work or looking for work, but the biggest increase is in people who are unemployed.

                      My opinion is that constant 6% unemployment in a society that doesn’t pay enough to people who aren’t in paid employment is unacceptable.

            • adam 15.1.1.1.1.2
              5 May 2016 at 10:41 pm

              Propaganda.

              When these figures are up for discussion, for example this government calling someone employed with just 1 hours work.

              Let alone you or anyone else not addressing underemployment, the youth unemployment rates, the massive unemployment rates in Maori and Pacific Islanders. Or the increasing suicide rates

              What is truly short of remarkable, is people like you who can bury their heads in the sand.

              • International Rescue …
                6 May 2016 at 11:59 am

                So you criticise a Gvt, and when presented with data showing they are doing a good job you blame the data. Sigh. There are none so blind as those that cannot see.

                • adam …
                  6 May 2016 at 12:13 pm

                  What are you, an idiot?

                  It is not good news if the data is flawed, but logic is not one of your strong points, as you have proven over and over with your comments here.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    6 May 2016 at 12:57 pm

                    +1

                  • International Rescue …
                    7 May 2016 at 8:38 pm

                    You haven’t provided any evidence the data is flawed. Indeed the data is prepared on an internationally recognised basis. You don’t like that NZ is successful. Suck on another lemon.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 May 2016 at 10:37 am

                      Yes, you semi-literate parrot, he gave you evidence.

                      calling someone employed with just 1 hours work.

                      This is backed by official info.

                      The unemployed are defined as those in the working-age population who during the survey reference week were without a paid job (worked less than one hour a week), were available for work, and had either actively sought work in the past four weeks or had a new job to start within the next four weeks.

                      Source: NZ Parliament, Household Labour Force Survey.

                      Please demonstrate that you know the meanings of the words “less”, “than” “one” “hour” and “week”, use the word “subsequent” correctly in a sentence, then fuck off.

                    • International Rescue …
                      8 May 2016 at 6:37 pm

                      Before that means anything, demonstrate how NZ’s measurements differ from those used across the OECD, the comparison I was making. We’re doing well, and you hate it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 May 2016 at 6:43 pm

                      I am doing well, you are semi literate, many are struggling and an increasing number are in dire straits. especially low-income families.

                      Do you know the meaning of the word “straits” in this context?

                    • adam …
                      8 May 2016 at 6:47 pm

                      You are a idiot, I posted here how it is flawed, I said how it was flawed, Lets not forget if it is flawed, it is not good news.Then still you just go for the personal attack.

                      Well OK sunshine,

                      You Sir, are the type of fool who makes bananas look like a higher life form.

                      You Sir, can’t have a conversation, because if some else is talking – you think they taking away from your “me time”

                    • International Rescue …
                      8 May 2016 at 6:56 pm

                      “I posted here how it is flawed, I said how it was flawed, ”

                      No, you didn’t. You explained one element of the measurement. So what? My post was comparing NZ to the OECD. If you’re suggesting their are inconsistencies in the measurement across the oecd, then demonstrate that, instead of meandering off on a tangent.

                    • adam …
                      8 May 2016 at 7:00 pm

                      This is a conversation about NZ jobs, not about the OECD. Just because you want to side track it, does not mean I will bite.

                    • International Rescue …
                      8 May 2016 at 7:11 pm

                      “This is a conversation about NZ jobs, not about the OECD. Just because you want to side track it, does not mean I will bite.”

                      1. Go back up the thread and you will find you are posting in a chain started by my post about the OECD.
                      2. Analysing NZ’s job record without reference to international conditions, population growth etc is a nonsense.
                      3. NZ is doing well by OECD standards. Our rate of job creation is healthy, and our rate of unemployment relatively low.

        • International Rescue 15.1.1.2
          5 May 2016 at 10:14 pm

          No, it’s their job to create the economic environment in which businesses thrive and employ people. National are doing exactly that.

          • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.2.1
            5 May 2016 at 10:22 pm

            No idea who the fuck you are trying to kid with your stupid sound bites, but why don’t you try it out there in the general community. Watch out for the rotten fruit.

            • International Rescue 15.1.1.2.1.1
              6 May 2016 at 12:01 pm

              I do! That’s the whole point. I live in the real world, run a business, get involved in a number of charities…it is NOT up to the Gvt to employ people. I thought you socialists had learned that lesson.

              • The Chairman …
                6 May 2016 at 12:12 pm

                “It is NOT up to the Gvt to employ people”

                Why not?

                • International Rescue …
                  7 May 2016 at 8:37 pm

                  Because they suck at it. Gvt’s are generally not good at picking winners, and frankly they should be using taxpayers money for essential services only (where they do employ people) and nothing else. In fact many of those services are better delivered by the private sector.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    8 May 2016 at 1:55 pm

                    Nor do you understand the meaning of the word “better”.

              • Colonial Viper …
                6 May 2016 at 5:36 pm

                if idiots like you can’t provide enough employment in the private sector, then yes, it is the government’s moral duty to provide employment.

                • International Rescue …
                  7 May 2016 at 8:41 pm

                  The private sector is creating substantial numbers of jobs. The Gvt has no moral obligation to employ anyone, apart from what is absolutely necessary to provide taxpayers with essential services.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    7 May 2016 at 8:53 pm

                    I pose a completely different position: if private sector suckers like you fail to keep Kiwis gainfully employed, then the Government shall.

                    • International Rescue …
                      8 May 2016 at 9:56 am

                      If you’re referring to work for the dole…I’m with you on that. If you’re talking about simply mopping up the unemployed into Gvt departments like Labour did for the sake of manipulating unemployment numbers, then no thanks.

                    • lprent []
                      8 May 2016 at 10:26 am

                      Huh? National under Muldoon did that. The 4th Labour government reduced those jobs because we couldn’t afford them. Nothing similar has happened since. Well apart from National’s addition to comms and PR people on contracts.

                      I suspect that your memory is as retarded as your intellect. And I suspect you have bad case of Key ArseLicking (KAL) sucking up and feeding off all of the crap from those contractors. But don’t regurgitate around here. I’m interested in people who can think for themselves.

                    • International Rescue …
                      8 May 2016 at 6:33 pm

                      “The 4th Labour government reduced those jobs because we couldn’t afford them.”

                      Rubbish. The growth of the civil service under Clark was huge, and largely useless and ineffective. Get an education before you start lecturing to me.

                    • mickysavage []
                      8 May 2016 at 6:43 pm

                      Um I think you need a history lesson IR and a lesson in manners.

  16. framu 16
    5 May 2016 at 3:08 pm

    remember everyone – DNFTT

  17. reason 17
    5 May 2016 at 6:08 pm

    HHmmmm Aussie banks, numbers and the unemployed …. Lets do math on the subject of fraud.

    Aussie banks with the help of John Keys tax ‘expert’/judge, john sherwan tried to steal 2.2 Billion from NZ taxpayers.

    So in one hand, we have 2.2 billion dollar fraud from johns john and the aussie banks.

    Then in the other, we have 22 million TOTAL benefit fraud in 2010 from ALL welfare beneficiary s. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/research/expertise/business-commerce/fraud-sentencing

    International Idiot or that golem clown Puckish should do some math for us and tell us how many years worth of benefit fraud does it take to reach the amount that John’s john attempted to steal …………….. on behalf of the aussie banks.

    2.2 billion divided by 22 million equals how many years ???????

    Intrernational Idiot could then do a bit more math and divide 7.4 Billion by 22 million ……………….

    Then we can all think about why the nats are putting more and more resources into benefit fraud and stereotype smears against them ……………. while cutting staff at IRD.

    Just like the trolls ( I’m predicting they won’t do the sums for us ), something does not add up …………….. and it stinks.

    The other big fraud going on is this Governments use of dodgy unemployment stats which are as valid as those Ukrainian carbon credits we are trying to cheat the world with………………

  18. Byd0nz 18
    5 May 2016 at 6:17 pm

    A bright future was the slogan,and it was for the tax dodger, the foreign investor the sleezy mates of the crime minister and all you believers of the capitalist system. Keep voting, fool yourselves that the system will deliver,you derserve it.

  19. Cricklewood 19
    5 May 2016 at 6:35 pm

    Have to say ive found it’s not particularly easy to hire people in Auckland currently, get very intermittent (less than 3 per week) applications for laboring work at 22ph wages with a a garanteed min of 35 hrs per week. Easy to get to depot via the train or bus and free car parking on site.
    Sure it’s not the most glamorous of jobs but the lack of applications to me points towards other factors are at play…

  20. reason 20
    5 May 2016 at 8:24 pm

    Where are the workers supposed to live in Auckland on the money you are paying them……..?

    How many times your hourly rate = average rent per week.?.

    Auckland ………. is it working for you?.

    • Colonial Viper 20.1
      5 May 2016 at 10:49 pm

      Where are the workers supposed to live in Auckland on the money you are paying them……..?

      You flat with 4 other people.

  21. reason 21
    6 May 2016 at 5:35 pm

    Fine ……… but my room will be bloody crowded with my partner and two young kids.

    I heard Auckland was the ‘queen city’ so maybe it’s just not for the common people … Commute from Whangarei ?

    • Colonial Viper 21.1
      7 May 2016 at 12:07 am

      Welcome to life in most of the rest of the world.

      And some streets in Auckland.