New Zealand’s real unemployed/under-employed stands at 11.8% – over double the “official unemployment rate”.

That would actually be wrong.

The under-utilised rate is 11.8%
The unemployed rate is 4.8%

Add the two together to get the unemployed/under-employed rate of 16.6%

Wonder if they’re now going to start looking at the over-utilised. You know, the people doing 45+ hours per week. Wonder what would happen if people found out that politicians were a member of that group often doing 90+ hours every week.

The advantage to measuring over-utilisation would give us the ability to measure how much of the under-utilisation could be reduced if those so over utilised had their hours brought back to the standard 40 hour week.

The standard used needs to be complete transparency to the public, of all information gathered and able to be gathered.

It must be presented in a way that is clear and easily understood by the general public.

Nothing else is useful, to the employing public who pay for that to be done.

Politics should not enter into the process not political considerations.

Fantastic shunning detail there Frank,

Gosh we are fortunate to have your eye for accountancy detail.

The true fact is that this government use “creative accountancy”

Is this most aptly called “with smoke +mirrors”???

Yes National rules = firstly fudge everything.

Are the standards we use any different to the standards other nations use?

Now that is a fair question, Gosman. I’m glad you brought it up.

The standard definitions are indeed international standards that Stats NZ has opted to follow;

Looking at job advertisements on the internet is correctly classified as not actively seeking work. This change brings the classification in line with international standards and will make international comparability possible.

ref: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_and_unemployment/improving-labour-market-statistics/hlfs-revisions-key-labour-est.aspx

Which raises the very real problem that under-reporting unemployment through an arbitrarily narrow definition suggests that worldwide unemployment is much higher than we’ve been led to believe.

New Zealand may have decided to follow “international standards” – but those standards themselves are flawed.

If ACC has shoved you off the shelf onto the cheapo option of ‘invalid’s benefit’ there will be little in the pot to help you back into work.

If you earn ‘too much’ you may be required to atone for a year on a lesser rate of income from your benefit, unless you’re fortunate enough to get into decent full time employment.

Suggest you try connecting with beneficiary advocates to get a better picture of what you can access. Be sure that ACC is more likely to give you grief than assistance, although some people have found them ‘wonderful and helped them back into work – la, la.’ (I’m sure it’s true. I’m also sure the stories from the other side are true.)

We don’t seem to have much in the way of providing resources so disabled people can readily return to employment – unless you’re a professional of some kind. Feels like looking up at the floorboards of the OECD rankings, sometimes.

nact are hiding the truth from the markets
new Zealand never really recovered