Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

15 Comments

  1. The post-truth age is well and truly upon us. Statistics NZ should be ashamed of itself. BY corrupting unemployment data, they have played into the hands of this shabby government.

  2. You’ve got the definition of employment up there but what’s really needed to show the sham that the change in counting is is the definition of Unemployment:

    Unemployed: all people in the working-age population who during the reference week were without a paid job, available for work, and had either actively sought work in the past four weeks ending with the reference week, or had a new job to start within the next four weeks.

    Within the survey questions, to be regarded as actively looking for a job you must do more than simply look at job advertisements, whether it is online or in a newspaper.

    That’s ridiculous. If someone’s looking at job advertisements then they’re looking for a job. They’re certainly not looking at them for entertainment and if they weren’t looking for a job they wouldn’t even be seeing them. It’s actually amazing how difficult it is to actually find online job adverts. You have to actively go to the job sites and search that site just to even see job adverts. Even if the search is set up to be automated and emailed to the searcher the person would still be actively looking just to see them as you have to open the email.

    Now, there will be some people who are presently employed who don’t care if they find a job or not but they’re still looking. These people could probably be classified as not actively looking but they’d be the only ones. Of course, they’re also not counted as unemployed.

  3. What I find really concerning is that MacPherson claims that Statistics NZ’s new criteria are based on “international standards”.

    If that is correct, then as you say, Frank, worldwide unemployment is much higher than official stats suggest.

    I find that disturbing.

  4. Given that local government were given an edict by a government minister not to release negative information on the amount of farm effluent going into waterways and the subsequent in inquiry confirming what the minister had done, the amount of, rigging the stats to support this government just shows how corrupt they truly are.

  5. Frank, facts no longer matter, we are back with Goebbels and Co, see US elections, it does not matter what is fact and the truth, hence Key gets away with so much, it does not matter, you need to rethink your strategy.

    1. Mike… point taken.

      Perhaps I could throw in a few misogynistic references and demonise a couple of ethnic groups… (Just kidding.)

      But yes, I’ll have to reconsider how to present this kind of information in a “post-truth” era…

      1. On the contrary. Sanders has proven you can rouse those who is most victimised by economic/trade/neoliberal head winds.

        To me he didn’t resonate with the young black voter early enough. That felt like an add on. Obama resonated with the black vote naturally to outperform all predictions.

        Governor Grey and the framers of New Zealand wrote the treaty of Waitangi as a guide so any poor farmer has a shot at joining parliament and then go back to the farm when thier finished.

        It’s all there in the manual you can’t get it wrong even though establishment politics try to rush through breaches of the treaty of Waitangi when no one is looking. Honour the treaty has to be the easiest guide book ever.

  6. Frank, have you checked to see which figures the Government is using when they say that unemployment has reduced to the lowest since 2008?

    I ask this because the changes to the definition of unemployed has been changed backdated to March 2007, which means that the figures used for comparisons ought to be the changed ones as well.

    If they are using revised figures for 2016, and non-revised figures for 2008, then it is misrepresentation, at the least.

    Are you able to check this?

  7. Frank:
    What types of jobs are being lost? What types of jobs are being ‘created’?

    Where is ‘creation’ occurring?

    Can the workers who have been let go quickly find employment in the new job pool? Or not?

    Which age and skill groups are losing? Who are gaining?

    What genuine upskilling is being offered? What is being provided to overcome prejudices around age too young/too old,), skill sets, background experience, weird requirements to instantly know about some obscure industry without any on the job training?

    The figures provided by Stats are so vague as to be useless except for the purposes of spin. We need a much better and more up to date number picture of positions being offered in the SMEs as well as the over-padded businesses. We need to be able to track the changes to the ’employment landscape’ – the old and shrinking businesses; the new and slowly expanding ventures; the shape and services being provided in the service industries.

    Stats simply aren’t doing a useful job in the present highly fluid employment and enterprising environment.

Comments are closed.