Dyson claims 29,000 fewer jobs is not bad news
May 10th, 2008 at 9:13 am by David FarrarAs economists are describing the fall in employment of 29,000 as “very grim” and “an absolute shocker”, Ruth Dyson plays Chicken Little and says there is nothing to worry about.
The Herald quotes her as saying:
“Compared to 12 months ago, the employment levels are 0.2 percent below that level. So this is not a dramatic change if you look at the overall picture ,” she said.
“I don’t think that this is bad news at all actually, the fact we’ve got 350,000 more jobs than we had when we were elected (1999) to lead the Government should be very good news for New Zealand.”
This is why Governments get thrown out as they stay in office too long. No Minister should ever say that losing 29,000 jobs is not bad news. It is arrogant, uncaring and out of touch.
The comparison to a year ago is somewhat misleading. The fact is the drop of 29,000 in a quarter is the biggest drop since 1989. It has wiped out all the growth from the previous three quarters, and more. It is a 1.3% drop in just one quarter.
Normally over a year one has employment growth of close to 2%, so a 0.2% decline over the year is significant.
Dyson should have talked about the challenges of global turbulence etc, rather than pretended there was no problem at all and that 29,000 less jobs is “not bad news at all actually”.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Living in dream land? The Wake up is just around the corner.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Dyson’s commentary is a classic illustration of the weak understanding of economic matters that so many in this govt have. Stems simply from a severe lack of necessary experience.
Further… it also in my opinion reflects how the city of wellington and its machinations is sometimes six months behind the 8-ball when it comes to what’s going on out here. Brash did it with interest rates, and now so is Bollard. And clearly the likes of Dyson have little idea of what has occurred in even the last two months. Watch the stats over the next short period.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 9:29 am
LiarboreNewspeak rules.Hey, what else would you do if you had a track record/personnel muster/leader/strategy/policies like theirs?
Snigger.
It’s just too bad that it apparently takes one of the biggest if not the biggest economic crisis that any of us have ever seen, to wake up that section of the population who can be fooled some of the time. Evidentally, many of our countrymen are dumber than a box of hair.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 9:36 am
vto:
“Stems simply from a severe lack of necessary experience.”
I would suggest that equally it stems from an unwillingness to shift from their dogmatic socialist precepts that fill the fools with arrogance, hubris and economic ignorance at an early age. It’s an indictment on their intelligence and judgement that many if not most of the Liarbore politicians haven’t moved one inch from the naive folly adopted in their youth, even when their positions of responsibility have given them immense access to resources of information and intelligent debate from incredibly skilled people in whatever field they happen to be working in.
Imagine what could have done if normal people had been in charge in the last 9 years.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 9:36 am
I challenge Dyson to tell the F&P workers at Mosgiel that their job losses are “not bad news”. Or to tell the ANZ Bank workers who are going to lose their jobs. Or the mill workers up north.
I wonder what her union mates at The Standard make of this!
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 9:42 am
The up side is that it looks like interest rates may be on the way down sooner rather than later.
It only goes to prove that you can’t have high growth with low unemployment and also have low interest rates something has to give.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Phew…I can imagine that all those laid off over the last few months are now breathing a lot easier, things are going to be fine because Ruth Dyson said that losing their jobs is not bad news.
One can only hope that Dyson is looking for a job come November.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 9:47 am
IV2
“I wonder what her union mates at The Standard make of this!”
It’s the weekend mate. The anti spin wont be formulated and disseminated to the Standard, Nome, GWW etc until monday
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I work as a temp/freelancer, so by definition I’m never going to leave a retirement party with a gold watch and framed long service certificate. Just the way it goes. But while I expected Dyson to put the most positive spin on the new figures she could, I didn’t expect her to be quite so tin-eared.
I can only hope Ruth gets a post-election pink slip from the voters, and she can put the end of her political career into proportion in the bigger picture.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Funny how you boys all blame the government when things are going badly in the economy but during the last 8 years of economic growth and low unemployment the government was ‘lucky’ and it is all external factors.
I guess once National are in power they will be able to reduce the cost of oil, lower the value of our dollar, lower unemployment rates, lower interest rates, lower our taxes and reduce the wage gap with Australia all while also keeping inflation under control. It will be amazing to watch.
As for ‘The Standard’ response to this, they posted a comment about the employment rates on the 8th under the heading ‘Unemployment Figures’ – I think you guys can find it, you appear to know how to use the internet.
[DPF: You miss the point, as usual. In my post yesterday I actually said the Government was not primarily responsible. Did you not notice that? The issue today is not who to blame, but how out of touch Dyson is to try and spin 29,000 less jobs as not being bad news. Care to comment on that?]
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Craig
The only thing “Pink” Ruth wants is a Gin…..and to think I once missed the chance to run the woman over when she dashed out in front of me.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 10:21 am
We had an economic golden period because of globalisation and free market reforms through out the world. Labours ham fisted reversal of some aspects of this and it’s obsession with massive poor quality spending and anti growth policies mean that we will be hit harder than most by the inevitable, cyclic downturn.
It’s you lot who claim success for what were in reality derided neo liberal economic policies and deny responsibility when the arbitrary, partisan and folly of cullenomics is exposed.
And the issue is what is the Standards take on Dyson’s heartless comments……………or do they agree?
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 10:25 am
One the one hand we have labour saying its policies are responsible for low unemployment, then when unemployment starts to rise it’s the fault of “the international situation” (or blame National in the 1990′s).
So anything good- that was because of Labor’s polices.
Anything bad that was because of either:
A)The international situation
OR
B) The National Party in the 1990’s
The blunt reality is that unemployment was actually tracking down before Labour came into power in 1999.
To quote from statistics NZ in late 1999:
“The official unemployment rate has fallen to 6.8% at the end of September, down from 7% in the June quarter. The official number of unemployed is now 128,000 people, a fall of 11,000 people from a year ago.
This is the third quarter in a row that unemployment has fallen, and it is now at its lowest official level since December 1997. Unemployment has fallen below 10% in all regions for the first time in almost two years, with the Wellington region recording the lowest rate of 5%.
There has been an increase in full-time employment of 1.7% the strongest rise in full-time jobs for three-and-a-half years.”
Labour when they came into power simply rode a positive employment trend that was already happening that was caused by either:
A) The international situation
OR
B) The National party in the 1990’s.
So, Dyson , which was it?
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 10:31 am
When this woman opens her mouth bad things come out. Think alcohol, appalling singing now this ridiculous declaration. She needs a muzzle!
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I believe Ruth Dyson is acting exactly the opposite to Chicken Little. But otherwise, yes.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 10:55 am
That’s funny, I always thought she had one.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Bruv: I’m no fan of Dyson, but that was uncalled for. I might not be the only person reading this blog who has friends and family members killed in road accidents, and I sure wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
No, Rocketboy, I expect Ministers of the Crown regardless of their partisan hue to have a working brain-mouth filter in place. Do you really think people who’ve just been handed a pink slip — in some cases from jobs they’ve held for decacdes — really want to be told to cheer up, put it all in perspective and look on bright side that interest rates are probably going to come down soon? Get real.
OTOH, I guess when you expect nothing you’re never disappointed, but occasionally pleasantly surprised.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Craig, why do you care about someone who has been given a ‘pink slip’? Isn’t this just free market economics in action? The effects of globalisation realigning our economy, we’ll all be better off in the long run…….
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 11:39 am
David, by “biggest drop” you are talking by percentage-change. Certainly not by actual numbers of unemployed. We have also seen the highest birthrate since 1990 which would inevitably lead to a decrease in labour participation by work-aged females. As a you are a pollster I suspect you are well aware of these matters and yet you prefer to mislead. A little dishonest perhaps?
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 11:57 am
It would be a good news if her job is one of the 29,000…
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Craig
While your point is rather PC I do take the hint, consider this post as an apology if I offended you then that was not my intention.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Ferdinand – have you actually looked at the employment figures and do you know the difference between employment and unemployment figures? I suggest you do so before you make a fool of yourself.
In absolute terms, the only bigger drops in employment over one quarter have been 31,500 in March 1983, 36,000 in March 1988 and 31,000 in March 1989. So no I am not talking about percentage change and you can have 20 demerits for calling me dishonest. They are from the non seasonally adjusted series.
If one takes the more robust seasonally adjusted series which has run since 1985 (the other has run since 1970), then the drop of 29,000 in one quarter has never ever been matched. The closest is 22,000 in March 1988. Incidentally if one goes by percentage change, it has them both at 1.4% declines in a quarter.
Please try and use a small modicum of research before you try and claim something is wrong, let alone call me dishonest.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Well done David. The mis-spoken Ferninand talks Bull. (Sorry, that was too good to miss!)
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
A sad thing for those afflicted by unemployment. However, I can’t help but find humour in economists saying unemployment is a bad thing. I remember their ilk proclaiming it as rather necessary in the hey-days of daft monetarist NZ.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Funny David you are happy to use ( mathematically discredited) % figures when looking at carbon ( dioxide equivalent)emissions by comparing Australia, NZ and US rather than actual per head changes.
Sure NZ has some problems because of agriculture is a very proportion of the total.
So need to get on your high horse yet !!
[DPF: GWW you as usual are wrong. Kyoto is based on percentage change in total emissions. So in fact far from being discredited, those percentage figures are in fact what we are measured against by the UN. My God you really show your stupidity sometimes in your desperation]
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
You’re a tool gww. The Kyoto treaty explicitly tied us to percentage figures, not to absolute figures. Why would you use figures that don’t relate to our Kyoto obligations? You are attempting to spin again, but you aren’t really smart enough to make it subtle.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Have you really ever thought about the consequences of “no unemployment” would be? I’m not an economist but I think it would be a disaster. Just imagine for a minute what it would mean to have zero people seeking work.
You’d might have a sarcastic laugh for the “poor employers” who can’t find new employees to exploit at any price. Think you don’t employ anyone? Think again.
Having said that; I still believe it is very bad news for employment to fall so fast. It is a sign that something is seriously wrong. Dyson is shamelessly putting her head in the sand on this one.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Everytime any minister says something like this, I can only think of her poor press people, standing behind the curtain watching and screaming “No, what are you doing? Oh god….”
Those poor, poor overworked people.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Nothing is so unemployable as an out-of-work Labour MP as quite a number of GWW3 mates will find out very very shortly (unless of course you are Dover Samuels who is turning his back on the ‘paradise’ he helped create and going to live in Australia – new challenges; new hotel corridors).
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
DPF:
“No Minister should ever say that losing 29,000 jobs is not bad news. It is arrogant, uncaring and out of touch.”
Perhaps you need to be taking a broader, more meaningful perspective DPF?
In the US unemployment is up at 5%, whereas here it’s still down at 3.6%. One of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. Yes Dyson’s words can be taken as callus, but what really matters are the results. And where National failed to keep unemployment even below 6% in the 1990s, Labour have had it below 4% for the last 4 years.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
PhillipJohn/Roger Nome:
You do realise that Kiwiblog readers are, generally speaking, an intelligent bunch don’t you? Quoting statistics out of context doesn’t win you any awards. Your comments on the different prevailing global economic conditions in the 1990s and the last 4 years please?
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I mistrust Labours reporting of unemployment numbers.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Hey if we had zero unemployment… would nome still be unemployable?
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
POC – my point was that employment isn’t one of Labour’s week areas.
DPF’s trying to tell us that unemployment at 3.6% is a disaster. That just isn’t true.
[DPF; You are lying and 20 demerits for blatant falsehoods. I never said or implied that. In fact yesterday I even said the drop probably wasn't as bad as the official figures. Attack what I say, but do not lie about what I don't say]
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Get staffed:
New Zealand’s employment rate is much higher than it was in the 1990s. From memory it’s at 76%, where as it was 70% at the end of National’s tenure. We have low unemployment because we’ve had high job growth, not because some sick people got shifted from the unemployment benefit to the sickness or invalid’s benefit.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
PhillipJohn/Roger Nome:
Proof please – where in DPF’s post do you find support for that view?
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I would have to agree with getstaffed here.
The unemployment figures have always been beaten into shape by a overbearing Labour masseuse.
To spin that 29,000 job losses is actually a positive outcome is a disgrace.
Vote:Dyson just hoisted her true colours up the latest poll.
May 10th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
POC:
“Proof please.”
“As economists are describing the fall in employment of 29,000 as “very grim” and “an absolute shocker”
He’s using the old journalist’s trick of selectively quoting the opinions of “experts”, pretending like it’s not the impression he’s trying to create … he’s just reporting the “objective facts”. Of course he’s trying to portray the employment situation as “very grim” or “an absolute shocker”. Why selectively quote these things otherwise?
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
bwakile:
“to spin that 29,000 job losses is actually a positive outcome is a disgrace.
Dyson’s actual words:
“So this is not a dramatic change if you look at the overall picture ”
Doesn’t sound like she’s trying to say it’s positive to me.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
RocketBoy wrote:
It’s called plain common decency. Try it sometime.
And BigBrov wrote:
I had no idea not making funnies about killing people was political correctness gone mad. You learn something new every day.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
PhillipJohn/Roger Nome:
Did you even read the referenced article:
I’ll add to that list – BNZ’s Tony Alexander:
So 3 chief economists disagree with minister (with a small ‘m’) Dyson.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Unemployment at 3.6% is still one of the lowest rates in the world. How that’s an “absolute shocker” is beyond me.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
The objective facts, PhillipJohn, are that this is the biggest quarterly employment decline since 1989. Against that your rebuttal looks decidedly weak, I’m afraid.
Off-topic to DPF: any particular reason why Kiwiblog pages are taking longer to load? I’m finding my browser often gets stuck and have to refresh multiple times – just me?
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
POC-
“this is the biggest quarterly employment decline since 1989″
So our employment situation has gone from being amazing to excellent. I think that’s Dyson’s point. It isn’t the end of the world.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
PhillipJohn/Roger Nome:
Since 1989 – so even worse than National in the 1990s. Oh I’m enjoying watching you spin this – faster than a Black Widow!
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Phillipjohn don’t you read? Its not the absolute figure that is causing some alarm, it is the speed and size of the change. I guess what it means depends on whether you accept the view that labour stats are a leading or a trailing indicator.
Under 4% unemployment is technically excellent. However beneficiary figures of around 200,000 tend to inflate that just a little. Governments of both persuasions have seen massive inflation of beneficiary numbers, although this current regime seems to be encouraging the switching a bit more actively – just as they have groomed hospital waiting lists for that matter.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
” my point was that employment isn’t one of Labour’s week areas. ”
Vote:Hence buying NZrail!, theres only so many you can stuff onto sickness benefits
May 10th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
You see Nome doesn’t seem too worried as it’s only the proletariat that are at risk here. His student allowance, paper run and stone fruit picking job at autumn half hols is not at risk.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
POC – Nigel, an employment rate of 76%. What does that mean to you?
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Woger
I hope you realise that your piss poor attempts to justify this appalling rise in unemployment figures are going to be thrown back in your face once Key is the new PM.
I cannot wait for the first post you or your other lick spittle wankers make when we see a rise in unemployment figures, all that you have said in this and other posts will come back to haunt you.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
well nothing phillip john, it isnt even a sentence – has the cask kicked in already? Perhaps you would like to reformulate in english?
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Nostradamus , the thre ‘bank’ economists you refer are just talking up a Reserve bank rates cut- so they dont have to increase their rates as they have been doing. In fact if the RB did CUT rates the same banks would pass on the rates claiming ‘higher’ funding costs.
And the actual change of job numbers ( in each quarter)has never been used before !
But lets look at Q1 1990 when employment was 1542000, 21 months later Q3 91 it was down to 1513000.
Large drop you say of 29000 yet the unemployment numbers went from 7.1% to 10.9%
Compare with the 3 month figure just given of 32000 the change in unemployment rate was up 0.2%
Thats right 0.2%..
I think we will see a correction in the numbers announced soon ( like the so called ‘plunge’ in tax reciepts a few months back)
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
from the stats website: “The number of people in the labour force decreased by 24,000 (1.1 percent) to 2,222,000 in the March 2008 quarter, while the working-age population grew by 10,100 (0.3 percent). This resulted in a decrease in the labour force participation rate of 0.9 percentage points to 67.7 percent.”
You can’t even get your stats right, sharpen up phillipjohn.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
March 2008 quarter Quarterly change Annual change
Unemployment rate 3.6% +0.2 -0.1
Unemployed 81,000 +5.5% -2.2%
Employed 2,141,000 -1.3% -0.2%
Not in the labour force 1,062,000 +3.4% +4.3%
Labour force participation rate 67.7% -0.9 -0.9
Interesting, as the population is 4.26 million now
So Phillipjohn, what are those 32.3 percent of the potential labour force actually doing? how many are sickness beneficiaries? How many are on the DPB, how many have been reclassified onto other forms of welfare. Strikes me that having more than than 30 percent of the potential labour force not participating is quite an interesting statistic -n’est pas?
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
“….an employment rate of 76%. What does that mean to you?”
It means we still have too many bludgers and parasites (why on Earth does the name philu come to mind?) living at the expense of the productive sector of the population.
Putting aside the true cases of hardship and real need, I believe NZ should make these people earn a living, instead of drawing the fortnightly benefit.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Roger Nome: It isn’t the end of the world.
Tell that to the people that lost their jobs because of Labour’s actions.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
“Strikes me that having more than than 30 percent of the potential labour force not participating is quite an interesting statistic -n’est pas?”……………..says nigel.
Explains the low GDP per capita, which at the end of the day will be the legacy of Cullen and Clark.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Manolo – hear hear.
There are true cases of hardship and I’d like to see more effort committed to identifying and supporting these people, at the expense of the rest of the public tit suckers.
But this just isn’t the Labour way… Labour needs a huge pool of dependent-on-the-state folks in order to sow their fear of change message. Fear of change, of course, means Labour’s assured return to power. That’s all important. Growth of NZ’s economy and the self-determination of it’s citizens is way down the list of Labour priorities.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
The only thing to fear is fear itself… or the fearmongers
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Get a feeling there’s an upset coming tonight
GO THE HIGHLANDERS!!!!
sorry there was no “general” post today
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Ghostwhowalks3:
*Sigh*
I’ve long concluded that you’re commercially illiterate, but this really takes the cake. Please do take the time to reeducate yourself – as Australia has recently worked through this debate:
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Manolo:
“….an employment rate of 76%. What does that mean to you?”
It means we still have too many bludgers and parasites
ra ra ra, uninformed, bigoted beneficiary bashing etc …
Actually, an employment rate of 76%, as we have now, means that we would have had the third highest employment rate in the OECD in 2005. Read em and weep.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/24/38335554.pdf
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
PhillipJohn/Roger Nome:
Comparing different data sets? Newsflash: there are X trees in NZ now, which means we had the Y-highest number of trees in the OECD in 2005!
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
The big banks are still ‘talking up’ an interest rate drop, which will benefit them ( so they dont have to increase theirs)
But look at these numbers
Job numbers growth in 9 years of national 252,000
Job numbers growth in 8 years of labour 345,000
A massive 37% difference
Theres a % for DPF to stick up his pipe and smoke it
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
POC-
Three years difference isn’t a lot. We’re still near the head of the pack. I just don’t understand how that’s a bad thing.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Ghostwhowalks3:
I think my earlier comment to PhillipJohn applies to you – with one minor modification:
You do realise that Kiwiblog readers are, generally speaking, an intelligent bunch don’t you? Quoting statistics out of context doesn’t win you any awards. Your comments on the different prevailing global economic conditions in the 1990s and the last [8] years please?
PhillipJohn/Roger Nome:
The fact is you compared apples and oranges – it was misleading. And again, this is the biggest quarterly employment decline since 1989. It’s worth noting that National was faced with the 1991 Gulf Crisis and the 1997-1999 East Asian economic crisis. For Dyson to downplay this latest statistic is, frankly, disingenous. As DPF pointed out, there were more appropriate ways for her to comment on it.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
GWW3 a retard in a coma could have achieved the same results in the last 9 years.
How about you start quoting figures on productivity, increase in sickness benefits or pay per capita compared to Australia?
Labour has spoilt the best opportunity in a generation to leap frog NZ up the OECD rankings, but has actually gone backwards.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
“The fact is you compared apples and oranges – it was misleading.”
If I was aiming to mislead I wouldn’t have pointed out that the figures came from different data sets. The reason i used the OECD 2005 figures was because I couldn’t find more recent OECD employment rate figures. If you can I would be glad for you to provide me with a link.
Still the fact remains, the government’s economic management has placed us extremely well to weather the current global credit crisis. Imagine if Cullen had been running deficits instead of surpluses (there’s good evidence to suggest that the opposite would have been true under National). There would be no way for us to stimulate an ailing economy without damaging long-term growth.
The government’s approach to the labour market has been one of flexibility and active assistance to unemployed workers who are trying to find work (Labour restructured WINZ to achieve this). This means that if we have to face job losses, we start from a very strong position.
http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/?p=760
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Dont give this intelligent bunch bit. ( look below to see DPFs lies)
labour has had the 9/11, the 2nd Gulf war and now the global credit crisis.
Thats why you have to govern to arrange surpluses!
Quoting out of context ???
Really
Look at what Dyson actually said
“I don’t think that this is bad news at all actually, the fact we’ve got 350,000 more jobs than we had when we were elected (1999)
350,000 new jobs ….since we were elected is not bad news!!
Of course 29,000 jobs down ( may be revised later, its supposed to be seasonally adjusted but some one may added 0 by accident) is bad news for those people . But that is NOT what Dyson said
DFF said this.. and that 29,000 less jobs is “not bad news at all actually”.
He deliberately puts words together to make a connection Dyson didnt make.
Its called lying
[DPF: And that is 20 demerits. Dyson was responding to the HLFS survey which showed 29,000 less jobs and said it was not bad news at all. Everyone who is not a moron knows it is a stupid thing to say - she will have been beaten up for it. She could have referred to the overall increase in jobs since 1999 without using those words]
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Ghostwhowalks3:
I believe accusing DPF of lying – or wilful dishonesty by any form – results in demerits. Count yourself lucky if you get 20 or less.
By the way Dyson said “I don’t think that this is bad news at all actually” – read the referenced article. This was a further qualification on these statements:
So that’s a whopping lie.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
“So that’s a whopping lie.”
That’s a little hyperbolic POC. It all depends on what context you place the change in. I believe that I’ve shown you why it’s not huge change. We’ve gone from amazing to excellent, and thanks to Cullen’s excellent fiscal management record we’re well placed to weather this change and other near-future changes.
If you lose sight of the big picture things can look a lot more dramatic than they actually are.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
You are saying two different quotes ( which may have been answers to different questions) when put together by a journalist-sub editor- maybe the CEO had a say , it has happened- and then butchered by DPF constitute the narrative that Dyson said.
The quotes only cover the not bad news for the 350,000 jobs. read it , that cant be too hard
And who was the blogger who cried crocodile tears when Key was reported for say he wanted to cut jobs, when two NP bigwigs were caught out saying different things about climate change to different audiences
So you are one of the so called intelligent people ! Pleeeese
And DPF should be very carefull, he may phone in to a APN owned radio network, free lance for APN newspapers, sit at the APN table for the Qantas awards , but some other journalists ( on other media ) may find him quite a … juicy target ?
Look at the British newspapers who aren’t afraid to use fake sheiks, call girls, rent boys, domanatrixes to get the truth about people in the news
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
PhillipJohn/Roger Nome:
The big picture: this is the biggest quarterly employment decline since 1989.
And it’s not hyperbole: Ghostwhowalks claims Dyson didn’t say that 29,000 fewer jobs isn’t bad news – but that’s clearly and indisputably the context of her comments. By the way, you’re coming across as a bit of a Cullen sycophant (“thanks to Cullen’s excellent fiscal management record“).
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
This what Dyson did say (unedited by butchers or NZPA)
Labour Force Survey reflects stability
Thursday, 8 May 2008, 12:56 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Government
8 May 2008 Media Statement
Labour Force Survey reflects stability in the face of economic challenges
The latest Household Labour Force Survey quarterly results shows that despite the global economic challenges, New Zealand’s employment levels have remained stable over the last year, says Employment Minister Ruth Dyson.
The survey shows the employment levels for the quarter of March 2008 are only 0.2 percent below the level of 12 months earlier.
The current 3.6 percent unemployment rate for the March quarter remains among the lowest rates ever recorded in New Zealand, and keeps us as the 6th lowest in the OECD.
Unemployment has sat below 4 percent for nearly four years. No other country in the OECD has achieved this. There has been a fall from the record high in the December quarter, when the unemployment rate was the lowest since the Household Labour Force Survey started.
There are still over 350,000 more jobs in our economy than there were in 1999. Over 140,000 fewer people are relying on working age benefits.
We have fundamentally changed expectations for the level of employment that can be sustained in our society.
Despite these enviable figures, the Labour-led Government, like many other countries, is mindful of the current global economic challenges. We take those challenges seriously.
This month Dr Cullen will deliver a budget that will reflect the seriousness of our economic challenges while continuing to plan for the strong future we all deserve.
Incorrect assumptions on Labour Force Survey
Friday, 9 May 2008, 9:51 am
Press Release: New Zealand Government
Hon Ruth Dyson
Minister for Social Development and Employment
8 May 2008 Media Statement
Incorrect assumptions on Labour Force Survey
Some incorrect assumptions have been drawn from the latest Household Labour Force Survey, says Employment Minister Ruth Dyson.
“There were not 29,000 fewer jobs available in the March quarter compared to the previous quarter. What the survey report says is that there were 29,000 fewer people -in employment, the majority of whom left the labour force. That will be for a variety of reasons.
“As I said in my earlier statement today, there are still over 350,000 more jobs in our economy than there were in 1999. Over 140,000 fewer people are relying on working age benefits.
“Despite these enviable figures, the Labour-led Government, like many other countries, is mindful of the current global economic challenges. We take those challenges seriously,” said Ruth Dyson
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
What are you talking about ‘context of her comments’ ?
Mind reader now are you, hearing voices ?
The comments were cut and paste from Dysons press releases and put out under a no name reporter (NZPA)
But you have missed something that was said by old slippery again
John Key’s claim that he supported the government purchase of the rail tracks in 2004 is yet another revisionist interpretation of his own history, Finance Minister Michael Cullen said.
In 2004, Mr Key railed against the purchase of the track system, saying it would lead to ‘pork-barrel politics’, ‘political interference’ in investment decisions, and inevitable investments in services of ‘questionable economic value’.
Yet this morning on Breakfast(TV), Mr Key said that “…owning the tracks, that’s a pretty sound idea.”
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
“The big picture: this is the biggest quarterly employment decline since 1989.”
That isn’t anything like the big picture. In fact it’s almost the smallest picture you could quote. It’s only measuring change over 3 months – meaning that a large factory closing to move to china as a result of the China-NZ FTA being made public, could significantly distort the figures etc…
It’s just one statistic out of many relevant ones. And probably one of the very few negative ones.
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Well spotted ghost. So how many slippery flip-flops do we have now?
Kyoto is a hoax!
Iraq war is a OK!
Buying the rail tracks back – bad idea!
Please feel free to add to the list if you can think of any more!
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Can we add ONE more to the 29,000 who are ‘not in employment’ ( based on a survey)
Bob Clarkson!!
Vote:May 10th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
nome, we humble voters have a choice to make later in the year. At that time I’ll be looking at the delta that exists between the personal integrity of Clark and that of Key. Actually to call it a delta is a little generous because that term implies some form of objective measurement. But that’s not really possible.
Why? Because Clark has led the most lying, cheating, power-abusing, manipulative government that NZ has ever seen. On her watch we’ve seen mid-term voting-with-my-feet emigration surge to 4 full 747′s each week, as skilled kiwis leave our shores permanently. We’ve seen interference with judicial process, draconian anti-freedom legislation passed and MMP routinely abused to buy continued dominance of the treasury benches.
The only thing that’s slippery right now is the slippery path to political exile that awaits Clark and her limp, rag-tag bunch of MPs.
Vote:May 11th, 2008 at 12:14 am
New name for Roger … Parklight.
Vote:May 11th, 2008 at 1:24 am
David – I agree with the general thrust of your post, that being that the line taken by Minister Dyson in responding to these figures invited comments like your one here. However, I’m guessing that had the Minister taken the line you propose it would almost certianly have been followed by a post along the lines of labour being willing to take credit for good employment figures, and blame international influences for any downturn.
I also note that while your post considers a percentage decrease in employment growth over the year to March 08, no mention is made of the fact that the unemployment rate actually decreased over this period as well, something that a balanced review of the situation would surely have required; but then it is your blog and you make no pretense at objectivity, so all good.
Vote:May 11th, 2008 at 7:18 am
The economy is in such not bad shape that uncle scrooge and “that woman” are going to bribe the peasants with a social dividend to be paid out just prior to the election. No fucking shame I think is the appropriate comment.
Vote:May 11th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Give that women a bottle of wine and a car to drive home in AFTER CONSUMMING IT, i have been told by the liarbour party that this ratsarse singer is one of their bright???? up and comers, DUH, one of helen davis (girlfriends) anough said
Vote:May 11th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Nomestradamus
Maybe I can help. Both PJ (the wikiwarrior) and GWW might understand this better.
Both of them should get on a bike at the top of say Treble cone ski field. Just free wheel down as fast as they can until they get to the halfway point. Then slowly and gently apply the brakes until they stop. This is a decline in speed from very fast to stationary over a period of time. Now lets get them to get back to the top and do this again. Except this time wiki and ghostie while you get back to the top, Nomestradamus and myself quickly (because we have no union to slow us down) build a wall around a blind corner just about halfway down. Once again you will go from very fast to stationary…….
Over your head PJ and GWW. Thought so reading your above posts.
Vote:May 11th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Jim
At least with Dysons head in the sand the view is improved.
Vote:May 11th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Nome 3189
Agreed but if you credit Labour with low unemployment which is a fair point then you debit them with any rise in unemployment – like night follows day or do you have a spin that keeps us in the dark.
Vote:May 11th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Nome
76% employed just means 34% are not employed. Of far greater importance is the productivity of the 76% and as the number employed has increased so has the productivity of the total workforce decreased which means the latest additions to the workforce are producing less than the existing ones to the extent that they dilute productivity overall. It seems possible that there is a correlation with the quality of emigrants against immigrants or that the existing workers are so pissed off having no dependent children and getting nothing in the way of tax relief or WFF BENEFITS they see no point in working harder/longer to increase their earnings to next higher tax bracket and the their taxes wasted by an incompetent govt. They may then use the free time to investigate Australia.
Vote: