Not mentioned in this article - our corrupt, self interested government abruptly cancelling a bunch of much needed infrastructure projects when they came into government, leaving whole sectors in limbo and their workforces leaving for Australia.
Xcf456
joined 1 year ago
2010 was when underutilisation started being collected.
What I was getting at though was that a historically normal level of unemployment is tricky to work out as the measure itself has changed over time, in part because the labour market has changed.
There are far more part time, casual, flexible roles today so even when the labour market gets worse, people may still be working some hours so they don't show up in unemployment stats, but they do in underutilisation. Employment has only been counted like this since (I think) the late 90s so it's not directly comparable to before then.
I get lost with the new benefits. Are the 187k people on Jobseeker not all considered "unemployed"? Is this a case of some people with part time work (underemployed) being counted in one but not the other?
Yeah the unemployment rate and benefit rates don't match up for a whole bunch of reasons.
-
you're only counted as unemployed if you're actively looking for work. Otherwise you're not part of the labour force
-
Not all unemployed people will be on jobseeker. If you have a working partner/spouse you're not usually eligible, for example.
-
'Jobseeker' rolled up all the old benefits into one, so there are people with disabilities who can't work at all counted in those figures.
-
You can work a limited number of hours while on jobseeker before it starts to abate.
The underutilisation rate is arguably a better measure, as it includes unemployed but also people who want more work but can't find it. It's potentially a 'truer' measure to compare to when, as you say, 4.8% unemployment is relatively low compared to other times in the past. You can work a couple of hours a week and you don't show up in the unemployment stats, but it hasn't always been counted that way.
They seem fine to me as a passenger, I manage to tune them out. Could be different if you're a driver hearing them for hours on end idk
Yeah but that's not forever. Big shifts like this don't always happen over night, they often take years of groundwork so you gotta dare to dream in the meantime.
Sidenote, this govt being one term is entirely possible. It's where labour/nz first was heading before covid and they decided to actually act and materially do things.
I think we'll see an increasingly oscillating political landscape as our various crises pile up (climate change, cost of living, infrastructure deficit), and govts fail to actually do anything to address them in any meaningful way.
Yes, but don't let the National party be the limit of thinking about what's possible. They won't be in govt forever
I agree there appear to be very good reasons not to use these.
Foling at 500kmph (edit: more like 250kmph by the looks of it) 10 metres above the water seems to just be inherently bonkers as a means of mass transportation given the very limited room for error/failure that results in everyone on board being instantly killed. Planes and helicopters can glide/autorotate, ships move slower.
The 3d mock ups and carefully shot video of the first flight (that obscures the fact it's a very small scale model prototype) suggest vapour ware scam startup.
Honestly for the love of god, can we just have trains?
NZ First out there doing blatant corruption while their voter base goes down rabbit holes looking for conspiracies in the World Economic Forum and vaccines and trans people.
It boggles the mind, like your actual conspiracies are right there, you're voting for them.
This one's weird too. In the reporting I've seen it's said ACC doesn't have the 6.5% reduction target because they're a crown entity and get most of their funding from levies. But the CE is quoted saying they're doing it anyway just cause vibes?
Hipkins did not say they should have cut services in favour of mega prisons.
I don't care if they campaigned on their terrible policies (although the ones they didnt campaign on are worse in that regard), they're still terrible.
Yes, the important thing is the (fake) hurt feelings of the government when being called out for:
- purging Te Reo from the public service
- committing to the Crown unilaterally reinterpreting the Treaty
- threatening the Waitangi tribunal
- slashing services both in scale and in approach (e.g. removing Treaty obligations from OTs remit), while massively increasing funding for prisons.
All I know about this company is they constantly scrape my home webserver with requests for some reason.