Nice Graph El Zorro, but come on what happend in 2008 that was out of NZ control.
Printable View
MVT, you fell into my cunning trap..I had a feeling that there had been lower unemployment 30-40 years ago. Also achieved under Labour. I bet if we graphed unemployment rates against National and Labour terms, or took an average, the figure would be lower for Labour. This would be because National is more concerned with business profits, part of their very flawed trickle-down theory. You can't have high profits in many "standard" businesses if you can't find suitable staff at suitable low rates of pay.
I'm sure Labour will be making this clearer before the election, but NZ's way forward must surely be to revamp all of our businesses so they can export more on average, and pay more staff better wages and salaries. So the GDP per person needs to rise. Labour have already shown they know how to do that.
Also achieved under a macro boom time EZ. Employers achieved the unemployment rate. Not the govt of the day.
The government is also a big employer though. Here is a bigger trend on unemployment. Our grandparents were dismayed at the ongoing strikes through the 70s. That's when unemployment started its big move upwards (Muldoon era). Right-wing policies from Roger Douglas in the 80s, along with a big recession, made it worse. The last three term Labour Government made a singular contribution to the health of the economy. NZ started to look even more like a great place to live.
So unemployment reached nearly 12% at worst, around 1991. This was a painful 15 year period in the country's history, when many older established businesses folded up, and a raft of new computer technology slowly gathered pace. NZ has been saved a bit from further ignominy by the increased pressure on food protein, but we have not developed our export income streams as quickly as many other OECD and emerging countries, IMHO.
Here is a Treasury working paper or draft, looking into ways to best get in some more tax revenue, without mucking up too much else in the economy. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/governme...tfep-s3-02.pdf
What I was looking for, was an up-to-date chart of govt revenue. All through this document, they show the income and expenses as a percentage of GDP. In all of the discussion, the idea of raising govt revenue through an increase in GDP per person was not mentioned. Labour managed to do this. What was interesting was that in NZ, compared to other countries, the govt raises a big chunk of taxes from personal income (PAYE and even capital gains etc) and GST. Increases in GST, being a tax on labour and savings, can reduce labour force participation, they said. But it's a great way of getting in a lot of revenue with a small change. CGT could reduce vulnerabilities to property price shocks.
Anyway, it would be a good read at some stage.
"Unemployment started its big move upwards?"
We're talking about an unemployment rate of 6.2%. Compare that to any number of countries overseas.
Anyone willing to move from Blackball and Nightcaps and Thames, who isn't into drugs and alcohol and gangs and who is literate (actually you don't even have to be literate for a number of jobs) can get a job.
You're thrashing a non issue EZ.
Keep up MVT, I was talking about the past, the unemployment rate ended up at nearly 12%. So it's not as bad now, I agree. There are plenty who have given up on finding work though, and removed themselves from the stats. Just like in USA. And our employment rate for young adults is quite a lot higher than 6.2% on average. Anyway, that was not really my point. Labour does better, (on average, using normal Labour policies) than National at getting people employed, and they don't do all of it by enlarging the public service. If those jobs in the last three Labour terms were fake ones, the average GDP per person (adjusted for inflation) would have gone down. Instead, it kept going up. Until National took over. The country went into idle mode on average, after 2008.
Unemployment is not a non-issue. Every time a supermarket opens and is looking for 30-40 staff, there are huge queues applying for the jobs. Others are working part-time jobs, often at near the minimum wage, which is below a living wage. If employers felt that they couldn't exploit this situation, wage rates would have to increase. You're right, some people could move to find better jobs, in certain situations. But I'm sure that if a job was found for everyone on the dole now, at least as many more would pop up looking for work.
Not a bad summary from Duncan Garner
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Duncan-Ga...x#.Uny2rZSkwly
Many in the long queue when a new supermarket opens will be able to show WINZ they applied, safe in the knowledge they are never going to get hired. Check out the folk lined up on the telly. They may be great workers but many don't seem to have made much effort to present well.
When you talk about 'living wage' it would be helpful if you also mentioned that the quantum was established for a one income family of 2 adults and 2 children. Which is around 6% of the relevant workforce. It was not intended to be the amount a single person or smaller family needs to live on. Have a think about what happens if every individual, regardless of age, skills or family circumstances. is paid the 'living wage' I suggest to you the ranks of the unemployed, especially the young, would swell quickly.
There may be unemployed people not appearing in the stats. However, they have income from somewhere. If they qualified for a benefit why would they not apply? And I believe they are accounted for in the HLFS.
The black economy in NZ is conservatively estimated at over $2 billion a year. Just sayin'.
Artemis, regarding WINZ requirements, maybe you are right, this has been going on for decades. But the living wage is enough for a family of 2 adults and 2 children, where one is working 40 hrs a week, and the other is working 20 hours a week.
I stand corrected on the latter point, as I have not checked, but my original points stand - the 'living wage' is calculated for a family with children, and this group is a very small proportion (6%) of those currently on minimum wage. So the proposal is basically to raise the minimum wage to the 'living wage' regardless? Makes no sense.
And next, if it is tacitly agreed individuals need that amount to live on, no doubt we shall see benefit levels raised as well. Slippery slope?
I assume the amount is based on average rents? If so, are state house tenants subject to some abatement of the living wage, or do they get a windfall.