Comments on: Employment declines

By: teegee

teegee — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:46:20 +0000

I feel sorry for the young viz those who have never seen hard times. Our extened family comprises some 30 plus ~ depending on what happened last night ~ and the young ones appear to think cash comes out of a hole in the wall.
The world economy is fast approaching a drop into a 1929 recession. Wall Street flips around as does the FT in the UK.
There is a saying when Wall Street has a sneeze NZ gets pneumonia.

By: expat

expat — Sat, 10 May 2008 20:01:24 +0000

How dare you question Auntie Helen and Uncle Michael. Shame on you.

By: Duxton

Duxton — Sat, 10 May 2008 19:44:45 +0000

getsatffed: I’ve commented on the issue of dodgy reporting of unemployment numbers before.

My stepdaughter receives the DPB, and also has a ‘job’ with Westpac as a part-time teller. She has worked TWO DAYS this year. However, WINZ do not count her as receiving a benefit, and therefore do not count her as a beneficiary. Instead they say she is receiving ‘income supplementation’.

By: expat

expat — Sat, 10 May 2008 19:23:25 +0000

Sheppards article was funny but not out of whack with what could occur.

By: OECD rank 22 kiwi

OECD rank 22 kiwi — Sat, 10 May 2008 17:20:41 +0000

Sorry about the Bruce Sheppard link. The article is still there. Just go to Stuff, then the blog section. Scroll down to Bruce Sheppard’s blog “Blog: Stirring the Pot” in the business section. The article is “Recession, how deep? How ugly?”

Hilarious reading the comments section. The bit where some people (lefties) think benefits are entitlements and not charity had me laughing for ages.

By: getstaffed

getstaffed — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:33:11 +0000

I’ve been highly sceptical of unemployment numbers since contracting to TEC a couple of years back. Seem there are plenty of NZers who are receiving the UEB but they are not classified as unemployed. This situation manifest when UEB beneficiaries applied for training courses specifically tagged for the unemployed… but they were told that they were ‘job seekers’ because that had applied for job in the preceding 6 weeks… and where therefore ineligible for the course. This led to a hastily convened meeting between TEC and MSD to try to get their (spin?) stories straight

Our unemployment figures are deliberately manipulated by a desperate Labour government.

By: stayathomemum

stayathomemum — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:55:17 +0000

I have a small business and although I’ve been there in the past, I won’t be taking on any employees. The cost has become just too large under this Labour government. The extra week’s annual leave, the increased minimum wage (and it’s flow on effect to higher wages), now Kiwisaver – may not sound like much, but they all have a direct effect on the bottom line.
If you end up with an employee who doesn’t perform, then you are lumbered with them and for a small business it can easily be its ruin.
The simplistic socialists are going to say: – well your business isn’t good enough then, or: put up your prices accordingly, or: interview employees well, (I can hear them now!) But my business is good. Its profitable and pays my way – its just well, small.
I’m just one, how many others are like me? I know of 3 in my circle that are not replacing staff as they leave, preferring a smaller ship, to the risks on the high seas.

By: Fred

Fred — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:02:02 +0000

Hmmm that article is no longer there, he must be revising figures. Dropping the OCR won’t drop retail mortgage rates in the short term, in fact it will put upward pressure on retail rates as a lower OCR makes it harder for banks to raise funds.

Alces don’t forget your detailed comment on Kiwisaver.

By: Duxton

Duxton — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:59:43 +0000

Capill, please don’t call roger a cunt.

Cunts are useful things.

By: OECD rank 22 kiwi

OECD rank 22 kiwi — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:46:41 +0000

Bruce Sheppard has an interesting article over at stuff that refers to the drop in employment. Recession, How deep? How ugly? Are the employment figures a sign of a big recession to come? It will be interesting to see how Labour manages to get the Reserve Bank to drop interest rates before October. Even if the interest rates do fall it will be too late to benefit voters before they head to the polls.

By: capills_enema

capills_enema — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:56:38 +0000

"who gives a rats arse what you think might have happened “had Brash and National been in charge”? " Damn right, you cunts never speculate about what would have happened under different circumstances... Cos that's bang out of order.

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:42:29 +0000

nome, who gives a rats arse what you think might have happened “had Brash and National been in charge”? We’re talking about what is happening now after three terms of a Labour administration. Or are you still blaming it all on someone else? How long does your lot actually need before it takes any responsibility? Oh, right, of course your answer is that the graph is obviously wrong…

By: emmess

emmess — Thu, 08 May 2008 11:41:39 +0000

>>In any case, it’s the far-right monetarism (which National and Don Brash followed at the time) which places high priority on low inflation levels, leading to unduly high interest rates.

Far right monetarism – gimme a break
You sound like Sue Bradford circa 1992
Jeeeez I bet Hitler is proud of the the world today (considering almost every country in the world uses interest rates to control inflation)
And you had the nerve to call me an idiot for calling Labour hard (not far) left for following one of the biggest programs of nationalization since the 70’s

By: roger nome

roger nome — Thu, 08 May 2008 07:43:43 +0000

bruv. You lie. I have a mutual friend wit hone of the standard guys. They aren’t Labour Party staffers.

As to unemployment in the 1990s. Well, from 1994 to 1998 interest rates averaged about 10% while inflation average only about 2%. So it could be argued that Don Brash’s/the Reserve Bank governor’s overly strict view on inflation control limited job growth and economic growth because of the unduly high interest rates businesses had to pay to loan money to start up a new business or expand and existing business.

Now people will say the the Reserve Bank Act provides the Bank with autonomy from the government, but it’s nonsensical to suggest that the governor is immune from government pressure.

In any case, it’s the far-right monetarism (which National and Don Brash followed at the time) which places high priority on low inflation levels, leading to unduly high interest rates.

Now since Bollard took over the governorship of the reserve bank in 2002 interest rates have been lower, averaging out at below 9% and inflation has been slightly higher at an average of about 3% .

I can’t help but think that, had Brash and National been in charge we would have seen lower inflation, higher interest rates, and consequently higher unemployment.

Anyhow, hardly concrete stuff, but interesting anyhow.

By: side show bob

side show bob — Thu, 08 May 2008 07:40:09 +0000

No use sacking them big bruv they will just go onto the sickness benefit but in all honesty it’s probably the best place for the lot of them. I know they make me fucking sick.

By: natural party of govt

natural party of govt — Thu, 08 May 2008 07:28:51 +0000

If its a sampling error expect to see a large increase in employment in the next survey…….for release a few months before the next election.

Lucky old Cullen.

By: big bruv

big bruv — Thu, 08 May 2008 06:55:01 +0000

Ghost

I only want unemployment to increase in November, luckily a good portion of the 49 socialist wankers who form the Labour government are going to be out on their ear by the end of November, I will personally run over anybody who gives an ex Labour party MP a job.

One can only hope that the Labour party staff who fund and host the Standard are all looking for jobs as well.

Actually that gives me an idea, who would you like to see John Key fire in his first week as PM?, I would like to see the following given the arse immediately.

1 Cindy Kiro
2 Howard Broad
3 Rob Pope

Feel free to add any other names.

By: ghostwhowalks3

ghostwhowalks3 — Thu, 08 May 2008 04:46:57 +0000

emmess Simon English said it was a hoax to get unemployment under 4%.
Any way the numbers are volatile aound this time of year. Its those reef fish again

2005 Q4 3.6 > 3.9% 2006 Q1

2004 Q4 3.6 > 3.8

20003 Q4 4.6 > 4.1

2002 Q4 4.9 > 4.8

So a 0.2% change is not unusual especially in the last 2 years ( lin 2005 it was 0.3%) even greater than todays numbers

And National didnt ‘bring down ‘ unemployment from 11% ( gasp) they pushed it up to 11% from about 9% first

By: emmess

emmess — Thu, 08 May 2008 04:29:11 +0000

>>The difference is that unemployment never stayed below 6% for more than a year in the 1990s, whereas Labour, thanks to its active labour market policies, have been able to consistently hold it below 4%

National brought Unemployment down from 11% to below 6% between about 91 and 96.
Yes there was a blip in 97 and 98 for reasons I stated above amongst other. It was back below 6% by the time Labour took over
Labour has only achieved a 2-2.5% fall between then and 04
I don’t claim to be able to see into the future but with the productivity growth we are getting now. I am as sure as hell with Labour in power it won’t be able to stay this low for very long

By: gd

gd — Thu, 08 May 2008 03:55:21 +0000

Now we must be consistent In 1997/98 The Socialists blamed the Nats so it appropriate to blame the Socialists

And the big laugh is as the Socialists supporters are economic and financial pygmies they will believe its the governments fault.,

And thats why the next round of polls will have the Socialists struggling to top the 30 point mark

Helen is looking like Hillary more and more Both names begin with H and both are losers who havent yet figured out what went wrong.

LOL