No – unemployment declined along with the post-recession catch-up – economists have observed that unemployment tends to follow the business cycle – pretty simple really.

” Studies show that moving people from welfare to work reduces crime, increases child self esteem, reduces the likelihood of crime and dysfunctional behaviour in the children of those who move from welfare to work and then there is the reversal of the rise in teen pregnancy rates.”

Sure – but the US’s punitive benefit cuts haven’t achieved this – there has been zero growth in employment rate since 1992.

“The employment rate is but one statistic and the one that favours your meme. There is job growth”

Job growth in the states has only just kept up with growth in working age population – so there has been no increase in employment rate since the benefit cuts. Conclusion job growth has been inadequate since the benefit cuts.

“there is the fall in unemployment”

So you kick some people off the dole – and your unemployment rate decreases. This means that you’ve got the same proportion of your working age population working – but you’ve got more who have no source of income – hardly a tale of success. Considering this, it’s difficult to see how there would be a lower proportion of people in poverty now than before the benefit cuts (But then again if you could produce some proof of your claims I might be more inclined to believe you) especially when one considers that wages have dropped for most workers in the us since 2000.

“NZ still has entrenched welfare dependency with some families with 3rd generation beneficiaries. ”

But we have a higher employment rate and a lower employment rate than the US – how can you say that their labour market strategy has been better than ours at creating jobs?

“It is not a co-incidence that some of the horrific public child abuse cases involve welfare dependent families.”

But we have the second lowest unemployment in the OECD – yet we have higher violent crime figures than most countries. This proves that there is much more to our crime problem than “welfare dependency”.

The US has decreased its crime levels through having 6-10 times as many people in prison per population in comparison to European countries. Now I know that you think that this is a success – but throwing 6 times as many people on the social scrap heap as any other country in the OECD, to me this is a huge failure, and is a shocking indictment of the way the US functions as a society – I know you couldn’t care less about those people though – as long as you have you’re comfy upper-middle class job and the police are protecting your relatively privileged position in society who gives a shit about those who fall through the cracks right?

See yall – gotta go now.

Please explain Switzerland’s high employment rate ranking. Oh and more social democracies rank below the US than above it.

The employment rate is but one statistic and the one that favours your meme. There is job growth (which has been high and strong in the US), there is the fall in unemployment and the fall in poverty rates especially the drop in black poverty and particularly of black children that tell a more powerful story. There was the huge rise the employment rate of solo mothers (100%) so citing one OECD comparison doesn’t tell the full story. Remember Roger people like you predicted a huge rise in poverty and all sorts of other ‘the sky will fall down’ predictions when the ’95 welfare reforms were passed. It didn’t happen – poverty went down and you try to explain it away by saying economic growth alone did that. Studies show that moving people from welfare to work reduces crime, increases child self esteem, reduces the likelihood of crime and dysfunctional behaviour in the children of those who move from welfare to work and then there is the reversal of the rise in teen pregnancy rates.

NZ still has entrenched welfare dependency with some families with 3rd generation beneficiaries. It is not a co-incidence that some of the horrific public child abuse cases involve welfare dependent families. The same horror stories do still go on the US but not with the same frequency as before. Welfare reform is not perfect and it is not a panacea for all societal ills by any means but it has shown proven results and has won many converts who were former skeptics because there have been so many noticeable benefits.

Unemployment in the 1980s (averaged out) was historically high for the US – it wasn’t a “boom time’ as you claim – that’s all I’m saying, nothing else.

“Please explain the 40% rise in the NZ sickness benefit despite such rosy economic conditions while similar economies (Australia and UK) showed reductions of the same benefit over the same period.”

Why? It’s irrelevant. What is relevant is the employment rate – that is the key measure of labour market policy success – it’s about getting people into jobs – not what type of benefit a small minority of the working age population are on.

” It would appear that social democracies such as Belgium, Finland, Germany, Luxemburg, Austria and France all rank below the US.”

So? Many social democracies rank above the US. The point is that employing punitive benefit cuts doesn’t achieve increased employment rate – it doesn’t get people into jobs -remember between the years of 1992-2005 (the period where benefits were savagely cut) the USA had zero growth in employment rate.

“And the highest increase in employment – Ireland another low tax high growth economy.”

Another country with relatively generous unemployment benefits – and centralised collective bargaining – in other words a social democracy. You also forget to mention Iceland – another social democracy which has a higher employment rate than the USA – so in fact 5 social democracies have a higher employment rate than the USA.

Please explain the 40% rise in the NZ sickness benefit despite such rosy economic conditions while similar economies (Australia and UK) showed reductions of the same benefit over the same period. Since NZ has done so well with employment growth why this glaring anomoly?

Interesting how you selectively use the OECD stats to make your beloved social democracies seem so wonderful. It would appear that social democracies such as Belgium, Finland, Germany, Luxemburg, Austria and France all rank below the US. One of the highest ranked is Switzerland (2nd only to Iceland and 3% higher than NZ) and Switzerland is a very low tax and low government spending capitalist economy without the huge welfare states of the 6 countries listed above. And the highest increase in employment – Ireland another low tax high growth economy. So actually only 3 ‘social democracies’ rank higher than the US – Sweden, Denmark and Norway.

The unemployment benefit available in NZ in the 1950′s was not open ended like it is today. In fact the welfare state compared to what it is today was minute. A very tightly targetted and means tested OAP and sickness benefit. No ACC, no DPB, no Youth Benefit,

Your figures prove me right there – an average of 7% unemployment during the 1980s isn’t what you can call “boom times” in a country that has a long-run average of less than 5% unemployment.

“http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2002/gdp302f.htm
1st Q 01 -0.6
2nd Q 01 -1.6
3rd Q 01 -0.3
2 consecutive quarter of negative GDP growth is considered by economists to be a recession. I said it was the dotcom collapse not just 9/11.”

Good to see that you finally stump up with some evidence for your claims.

“The sickness benefit in NZ is relevant because there is no logical reason (apart from Labour’s soft policy regarding eligibility) why these figures have climbed so obviously when economic conditions should’ve dealt to them like they have to the unemployment rate.”

So? We have one of the highest employment rates in the OECD – our labour market strategy has been very successful at creating jobs and getting people into work (certainly much more successful than the USA). In fact NZ ranks 5th in the OECD – and the only countries that rank above us are social democratic countries (despite having generous unemployment benefit levels). The USA’s labour market strategy on the other hand has been a relative failure – and consequently they rank only 10th in the OECD for employment rate. In fact the, despite all of their mean spirited benefit cuts the USA has had zero growth in employment rate since 1992 – they’ve merely reduced the number of people on the unemployment benefit through kicking them off it!

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/24/38335554.pdf

You see – people will work if the work is available- it has little to do with whether an unemployment benefit is available to them or not. This is why New Zealand had virtually no unemployment during the 1950s and 1960s – despite the unemployment benefit being available, this is why the social democracies have the highest employment rates despite having strong community consciousness and generous unemployment benefit levels.

I know you’re heart is in the right place and I agree that the current form of our welfare system nor the so-called “progressive” income taxation is doing the most disadvantaged in our society no favours, but neither are the so-called neo-liberal policies that have dictated New Zealand economic direction over the last 23 years.

Unlike you guys I am aware of the flaws in the current economic and financial system that determines the living standards of people in this country and of alternatives to it.

Personally I would favour a alternative currency scheme such as the Local Trading and Exchange Scheme (LETS) or a time bound money scheme similar to the time dollar system to replace Welfare Payments, because a) due to the flaws in our economic and finance system there is inadequate money in the system to meet everyones needs adequately, which is why everyone is so dependant on consumer finance these days and is heavily slanted to favour those who own property b) in the current welfare system there is no obligation to anyone else other than to prove that you’re at least trying to find work in order to get a payout each week, whilst in the above alternatives, your purchasing power is determined by how much you help others c) it would divest people of dependance on the heavily centralized authority (Central Government), and c) it would encourage mutual dependance and community solidarity and perhaps cure the social ills that are a result of the above flaws.

http://www.letslinkuk.org/
http://www.ces.org.za/docs/advantages.htm

For one thing, even the inventors of GDP admit is a poor indicator of the economic health of a country and since we have superior indicators like the Genuine Progress Indicator and the UN Human Development Index, so I wonder why anyone uses GDP and GNP.

Oh I know its, so politicians and neoliberal devotees can use such a distortionary, aggregate statistic that is heavily slanted to favour the wealthy so they can go on pretending that their policies are a raging success, rather than a dismal failure.

Apart from that I wouldn’t take US government economic statistics as gospel if I were you.

“Neither the Kaiser Foundation nor the Post understood that there was and still is good reason for the gap between common perceptions and government reporting: government data are biased in politically correct directions and increasingly have diverged from common experience and reality since the mid-1980s”
http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/article/id=340

virginblogger – all comes down to the definition of ‘brought up properly’. you and probably share the same definition, that of becoming well balanced productive members of society who help grow new zealand economically, culturally and socially.

The other definition sees the welfare dependent (and the more the merrier) as subjugated voter lemmings and tools for the justification of removal of wealth from the ‘rich’. It is the poor and the marginalised who are the socialists ticket to continued power. So the more they breed, the better is the attitude.

Our job is just to shut up and pay. And shut up and pay. And shut up and pay …

A condition of benefit should be parenting skills, attendance at school, etc and any non conformance or criminal conviction results in reduction of benefit. These kids that are not brought up properly are where all our future problems lie and it’s the state’s fault

http://www.bea.gov/scb/account_articles/national/1199gdp/table6.htm
GDP Unemployment
1982 -1.9 9.7%
1983 4.2 9.6%
1984 7.3 7.5%
1985 3.9 7.2%
1986 3.4 7.0%
1987 3.5 6.2%
1988 4.2 5.5%
1989 3.5 5.3%
Unemployment figures from the US Dept of Labor – Bureau of Labor Statistics

“Bullshit – show me where the US economy contracted in the post 9/11 environment. Put up or shut up. ”
http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2002/gdp302f.htm
1st Q 01 -0.6
2nd Q 01 -1.6
3rd Q 01 -0.3
2 consecutive quarter of negative GDP growth is considered by economists to be a recession. I said it was the dotcom collapse not just 9/11.

My original post was about the impact of ending open ended entitlement on welfare rolls in the US. You claimed the welfare rolls dropped in the US simply because of a growing economy. When I said the welfare rolls climbed through the strong economic conditions of the 1980′s you tried to say there were no such conditions but the official GDP and unemployment figures tell a different story.

The sickness benefit in NZ is relevant because there is no logical reason (apart from Labour’s soft policy regarding eligibility) why these figures have climbed so obviously when economic conditions should’ve dealt to them like they have to the unemployment rate.The Ministry of Social Development website http://www.msd.govt.nz shows that the numbers on the sickness benefit (that had been dramatically dropping in the last 3 years under the National Government) has risen from 35,051 in 1999 to 49,000 in Dec 06 (or a 40% increase). How many criminals listed in the courts section of NZ daily papers as having committed crimes that sick people should struggle to commit have listed as their occupation “sickness or invalids beneficiary”. I bet a much higher percentage than the approx 1.2% of NZ’s population that are on the sickness benefit.

let’s just say its Helens at the sight of extinct Kiwis

If labour get in again and you say that, you’ll be treated like a crazy Kiwi and shot.

rare as the breed is.

Have’nt you seen how helen looks at disdain at Kiwis at the opera.

There time is slowly coming to an end

Most NZeders need their lives managed by someone, as both parties agree…..enjoy suckers.

the socialists must’ve somehow become very,very wealthy

yes they have. used to be called highway robbery. today it’s called tax extortion.

Does anyone know someone who is glad Helen Clark and Michael Cullen run this country; under the fuel companies

The socialists love it. They’re wallowing in their religion.

Um duh. But I’d prefer if you didn’t give out my full name Murray. Thanks.

Sympathise, don’t mock….he bears a great burden.
Auntie Tina is here to help.

Capitalism and markets, the successful system vs socialism and proscription……

Reality is a bitch, eh Rog?