Before the global recession our unemployment rate was 3.3 per cent, so there is some way to go until so called full employment (if we actually had it then which is debatable)
No country on this planet has full employment.
Things that make you go hmmmm
Andorra does.
The problem is that the argument that they have such is....umm....interesting.
Friend works once a week 'off site' and the business pays for a taxi fare of about $35 return.
Both sites are next to railway stations. Thinking to save money he has taken the train, instead, for about $6 return.
When asked about reimbursement for the train travel he got a surprise.
The company will cover the taxi fare but not the train fare.
Hmm...
Andorra does.
The problem is that the argument that they have such is....umm....interesting.
full employment is where the unemployment rate = natural unemployment, isn’t it?
There will always be people who are unemployed or between jobs. I know someone who has been optionally unemployed the last few months. They were looking for a job, but were in a position where they took the time to upskill, and had the luxury of being picky about which jobs they applied for and accepted. Technically unemployed, but not really.
Likewise if some people leave a job, they’re not just going to straight away jump into the first job at McDonald’s that they see. They’ll look for a job in their area of expertise, in the city they want to live in. Being employed won’t happen straight away in that case, there is always a lag - it’s natural unemployment. After a while they may start to get desperate and take jobs outside of their chosen field or city.
Natural unemployment needs to be taken into account when considering unemployment rates.
Andorra does.
The problem is that the argument that they have such is....umm....interesting.
https://www.indexmundi.com/andorra/unemployment_ra...
Andorra doesn't keep its own employment stats so those we see are estimates. In the words of another " The state offers no unemployment benefits, and no records of unemployment are kept. Therefore, if you can´t be unemployed, you must be employed."
;-)
The above may be somewhat inaccurate...
Before the global recession our unemployment rate was 3.3 per cent, so there is some way to go until so called full employment (if we actually had it then which is debatable)
No country on this planet has full employment.
North Korea does....and they won the world cup !!
full employment is where the unemployment rate = natural unemployment, isn’t it?
There will always be people who are unemployed or between jobs. I know someone who has been optionally unemployed the last few months. They were looking for a job, but were in a position where they took the time to upskill, and had the luxury of being picky about which jobs they applied for and accepted. Technically unemployed, but not really.
Likewise if some people leave a job, they’re not just going to straight away jump into the first job at McDonald’s that they see. They’ll look for a job in their area of expertise, in the city they want to live in. Being employed won’t happen straight away in that case, there is always a lag - it’s natural unemployment. After a while they may start to get desperate and take jobs outside of their chosen field or city.
Natural unemployment needs to be taken into account when considering unemployment rates.
I think you will find that such people are not even in the statistics of the unemployed.
They are not even recorded.
If I left work tomorrow and tried to register for the unemployment benefit I wouldn't get it.
I think you’ll find that they are
Tegal, are you posting the above definition to illustrate that when someone says that we have full employment, it is a nonsense, as if that person had worked one hour last week he is deemed to be employed by the above definition?
Please elaborate.
And how would anyone know if I was actually searching for a job?
The real unemployed are those whom are on the dole. There are thousands whom are not who should be recorded and are not.
My uncle's has been self employed as a film editor for a number of years. He got sick for a bit, got better, had lost his contracts and basically hadn't worked for a year. He thought blow this I've been paying tax all my life, I'm going to be a statistic recorded. Attempted to apply at WINZ, not eligible for anything as his wife earned too much and he had a mortgage free house. He has never officially been recorded as unemployed. For all the government knows he has been having a holiday for the last year.
Hopefully this sort of crap will change your Farmer Bill and Don Key gone.
You said the examples I gave weren’t counted as unemployed. I showed you that they were.
All I was doing was giving examples of what natural unemployment is, and how that means there will always be a certain number of people who are unemployed.
Your uncle wouldn’t have counted as unemployed while he was sick.
If you’re interested in how they collect the data and come up with the unemployment rate etc figures it’s all here:
(Stats NZ is independent of the government as well by the way, so these methods won’t change just because the government has changed)
You can be recorded as unemployed without receiving any kind of benefit (like my friend above), likewise you can be receiving a benefit of some kind but also be counted as employed. I think that’s where you’re a bit confused - the unemployment rate data isn’t collected simply by counting how many people are receiving a benefit.
ummm, I am not confused young Nat, I think you are
And reread my post I said, he was sick he got better, he then tried to register as a statistic and was not one.
I left my job last year, for 7 weeks, had enough of the boss, was I technically unemployed as part of the 5 per cent before I went to another?
Not according to the government when I asked
But you know better?
Maybe read the link before making a fool of yourself. Not sure why you’re calling me a young Nat, this isn’t even a political discussion it’s a statistical one. Stats NZ is independent of the government.
Besides, I’m actually more closely aligned with labour or greens in my belief that the WINZ system sucks - it needs to be way simpler with the stigma of receiving a benefit removed. A UBI is an interesting idea that I’m tentatively in favour of. I think benefits should be easier to get - of course a small number will take advantage and just take the benefit without ever trying to seek work, but you get that now anyway and I think that just needs to be accepted as a cost of having a system that actually helps people rather than one that stigmatises them.
But good job assuming my beliefs based on nothing.
As I said, you can be unemployed and not on a benefit. Or you can be receiving a benefit and be employed.
As to whether you would’ve been part of the unemployed % - you would have as long as you were looking for a job. An example of being unemployed and not being eligible for a benefit (and it’s also an example of natural unemployment, so thanks for that)
I don’t really know how many more ways I can explain this or what other information I can provide you to help you understand, and you seem to be getting quite personal in your comments toward me (yet again). So I think I’ll just leave it there for now.
Alright enough politics in here, take it to the election thread and that can be re-named so this thread can go back to its original purpose.
[quote=Tegal]
Maybe read the link before making a fool of yourself. Not sure why you’re calling me a young Nat, this isn’t even a political discussion it’s a statistical one. Stats NZ is independent of the government.
Besides, I’m actually more closely aligned with labour or greens in my belief that the WINZ system sucks - it needs to be way simpler with the stigma of receiving a benefit removed. A UBI is an interesting idea that I’m tentatively in favour of. I think benefits should be easier to get - of course a small number will take advantage and just take the benefit without ever trying to seek work, but you get that now anyway and I think that just needs to be accepted as a cost of having a system that actually helps people rather than one that stigmatises them.
But good job assuming my beliefs based on nothing.
As I said, you can be unemployed and not on a benefit. Or you can be receiving a benefit and be employed.
As to whether you would’ve been part of the unemployed % - you would have as long as you were looking for a job. An example of being unemployed and not being eligible for a benefit (and it’s also an example of natural unemployment, so thanks for that)
I don’t really know how many more ways I can explain this or what other information I can provide you to help you understand, and you seem to be getting quite personal in your comments toward me (yet again). So I think I’ll just leave it there for now.
[/quote
Not personal but obviously I need to explain it to you very very simply
Quit your job or hell get fired from the movie theatre if you wish and then ask the government if you are registered as an unemployed statistic
Until you actually do you are talking out of your ass
I would ask Stats NZ, and I would be counted in their statistics as unemployed after a week, as long as I was actively seeking a job.
But I would not yet be eligible for the unemployment benefit from WINZ.
They are two completely different things.
did I say I registered for the dole?
And I have nothing personal against you
but you seem to be have more dumb assed comments then most so hence I will call you on them
Ok.
But I would be counted as unemployed if selected as part of Stats NZ data collection as long as I met the criteria posted above at the time (so if I had lost my job over a week ago, was actively looking for Work, and hadn’t worked anywhere else in the past week)
Also quite creepy that you know I work in a movie theatre.
Which once again shows your naivety as you have posted about it more than once
Therefore I'll give your posts from now the benefit of doubt and down to the ignorance of youth
But please don't hold yourself out to be an expert about nothing you know nothing about
On foootball matters it is ok
Never claimed to be an expert. I’ve simply posted the entire process they take in collecting the data as well as the definitions used in determining employed vs unemployed, whereas you’ve just said I’m wrong with no information to back you up and made personal comments about me.
It’s been fun as usual AP.
And I have given you real life examples to show the unemployment rate is not reflective of reality
Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm
And I’ve shown you they are actually counted as unemployed when the data is collected. A few of them were even perfect examples of natural unemployment, which is what my original post was about. The exception I think would be your Uncle who wouldn’t have been counted as unemployed while he was sick, but would have been if he started actively looking for work when he became well again.
Measure like natural unemployment, underemployment and so forth need to be taken into account when looking into employment data. But very rarely do politicians or the media look past the very simplistic unemployment rate. Stats NZ does go a lot deeper than that, they even collect data for underemployment as a measure after a review a couple of years ago (although based on recent media comments NZF/labour doesn’t seem to know that for some reason).
Take a look at the Stats NZ website, it’s quite heavy but very interesting and all the information is publicly available.
Can you give me the definition of "natural" unemployment?
Is that farmer Bill talk?
As I said earlier:
There will always be people who are unemployed or between jobs. I know someone who has been optionally unemployed the last few months. They were looking for a job, but were in a position where they took the time to upskill, and had the luxury of being picky about which jobs they applied for and accepted. Technically unemployed, but not really.
Likewise if some people leave a job, they’re not just going to straight away jump into the first job at McDonald’s that they see. They’ll look for a job in their area of expertise, in the city they want to live in. Being employed won’t happen straight away in that case, there is always a lag - it’s natural unemployment. After a while they may start to get desperate and take jobs outside of their chosen field or city.
It’s essentially people between jobs.
When you leave a job, generally, you don’t fall straight into another within a week. The process of finding, applying for and getting a job takes time. Frictional unemployment .
Likewise a job in your area of expertise may not be available straight away. There will be a lag before you find one, and in the meantime you’re not going to go straight into packing shelves at a supermarket, you’ll continue to wait for a job that utilities your skill set (until you get desperate and take that job at McDonald’s. Structural unemployment.
Add those together and you have natural unemployment.
Looked to see if the internet could explain it better than I am.
Found this:
https://www.thebalance.com/natural-rate-of-unemployment-definition-and-trends-3305950
is that Stats NZ definition or the young Nats?
How about we agree to disagree and move along guys? This isn't making me go hmmmm.
How about we agree to disagree and move along guys? This isn't making me go hmmmm.
there will be another despot waiting in the wings
there will be another despot waiting in the wings
Despot anecdote follows.
Teddy Obiang is the vice-president of Equatorial Guinea. Him and his dad are robbing the country blind. Shenanigans here.
I got accepted, yesterday, on his private Instagram account. Left two questions about the escalating poverty in oil rich, resource curse, Equatorial Guinea, and his willingness to plunder the country. For a guy on $100,000 a year he had a lot of 'assets'.
Anyway our online friendship hasn't lasted. Blocked already.
whatever does Conan mean?
Hmmm...
Mugabe hasn't thrown in the towel as expected. This could be fun. At 91ish, I'd be spending my stolen millions like crazy because there's no way he will see 100.
What is it with Africa and South America with the he who has the biggest gun rules....although Trump could easily fit into some sort of banana dictator too.
long queue
circles on the water
Tin Star
Zimbabwe quote "This was not a revolution to bring liberal democratic principles into government. It was about power."
Why are advertisers calling today Black Friday when it's not?? Black Friday sale! Hmmm
Why are advertisers calling today Black Friday when it's not?? Black Friday sale! Hmmm
A popular explanation became that this day represented the point in the year when retailers begin to turn a profit, thus going from being "in the red" to being "in the black". But also retailers have started streching the day earlier and earlier to increase the sales period.
It's an American thing which they're trying to force on the NZ market. The day after thanksgiving everyone used to call in sick so it was known as Black Friday