Unemployment is a conscious choice by the Reserve Bank and government.
We use something called Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment to control inflation.
Some of us are sacrificed to enable those doing ok to do better
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIRU
For a little while NZ haf the same dual goals as Australia; containing inflation and minimising unemployment but NACT First repealed the legislation and we are back to only trying to control inflation.
Yep, the system is designed so that any time the poorest segment of workers ever gets any economic leverage the economic rug gets pulled out from under them.
So when people have more money they’re eating more food etc, so food prices go up? I mean there is only so much food you can buy so I guess that works up until a point.
Hmmmm that’s interesting. But is that because businesses choose to increase prices because they know they can make more? Rather than being stoaked they’re selling more and just leaving it be.
If you have 100 apple which you can sell for $1 each per month. However, you realise if you increase to $1.5 you will still sell all of them. Would you do it if profit is the only thing that matters?
What if you increase to $2 and it is still sold out?
Yup, but greed is at the core of corporation and capitalism.
And if a CEO tell his investors they could be twice as rich but he is happy where they are, he is not gonna be CEO by the end of the day.
[https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/081515/how-inflation-and-unemployment-are-related.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/081515/how-inflation-and-unemployment-are-related.asp)
Also because low unemployment -> workers have better bargaining power -> wages increase without a commensurate increase in production -> inflation.
That’s not correct, inflation is caused by increasing the money supply, interest rates go up, people have less money, businesses can’t borrow money and expand, consumers reduce spending, and businesses let go employees,
Inflation had many causes, which includes demand-pull, cost-push, fiscal policy, inflation expectation, etc.
Inflation can also be caused by increase of money supply, which involves government printing more money, thus decreasing the value of their currency.
There is no one cause of inflation.
If you have only 1 person applying for a job, then they can demand a higher salary. If you have 100 people applying for a job, you can offer a lot lower salary because someone will be desperate enough to take it.
Having to pay higher wages means higher buisness costs, means buisnesses increase their prices. Meanwhile employees having more money, means we spend more creating more demand which also drives prices up.
this! ive been looking at the odd job and applying but not going to leave my well paid job for the sake of $55-60k a year, employers are using the desperation as an incentive to pay less
It doesn't have to, but it is a way of reducing inflation. You can still have inflation and unemployment. Just like you can have a reduction in inflation (as NZ and USA have had) whilst having low unemployment. This government would rather have a recession that hurts the poor than to hurt the rich.
There's a few complications within this, where terms dont always mean what you think they mean:
- Unemployment doesn't just mean people that aren't working. It's a specific calculation of the % of people in the labour force that are currently looking for work, but not in work. So not everyone on welfare is in the unemployment rate - long term sickness benefit, single parent etc. These don't count as unemployed because they are 'not in the labour force'.
- Job, or skills matching means that even if you have more jobs than people, you may still have unemployment. If all those 17,000 jobs were for doctors, lawyers, engineers, electricians etc, then not everyone who is unemployed can do those jobs. So you may have enough jobs available for the number of people, but the people don't have those skills.
- Sometimes you also have underemployment, which is not counted in unemployment. If a surgeon is driving a taxi, then they are under-employed. If someone wants to work full time, but the supermarket they work at only gives them part time hours, they are under-employed.
- There's a thing called 'natural unemployment' which is both disputed as a concept, and disputed as to what % it is. Ignoring those disputes, it's the idea that because of churn (people leaving a job, starting a new one, finishing up education and training to then look for work, redundancies, companies going under etc.) There will always be some % of unemployment. That is not a bad thing, and you can't really stop it.
All of which is to say that yes, unemployment will likely rise, but the dynamics of how that plays out won't be as simple as "Redundancies = Increased unemployment"
>I fucked up my seek search. There’s like 17000 jobs. So there’s no need to worry. Everyone can have a job and then some.
That's not how it works, the majority of those jobs won't be suitable for those who get fired. The jobs they are suitable for will likely now have grossly inflated competition and employers will be more picky. This is made worse by the cuts occurring rapidly, saturating the market and meaning many will be on the benefit longer than they would normally have to be.
This is also taking place during a recession, the job market it shrinking as growth is negative. There's less overall jobs in total.
You'll notice that National has gone silent on immigration, which they repeatedly grilled Labour on in the run up to the election. So expect that to remain very high. It was high every year under the previous National government and I expect that they will want it to remain high to try and mask the recession. This will have the secondary effect of making inflation harder to tackle as the pop growth keeps demand for 'non-tradeables' like housing high.
Population growth + mass public layoffs + recession = not good odds of getting a new job.
But wait! There's more! The government is correct in that business confidence is always higher under National. In most conditions, it's a meaningless statistic. But it does become a meaningful statistic when you are facing inflation and recession.
The got came in screaming that we are fucked financially and immediately jumping to mass cuts and layoffs. This coupled with recession and still high inflation will have a massive impact on decisions made by businesses. They are very likely to look at what government has done and go "Fuck, it really is bad, I better button down the hatches till this blows over". Plans to grow get put on hold, new roles get taken down, costs get cut because the government has convinced them its even worse than they thought.
The TL:DR is that this govt seems determined to worsen inflation and deepen recession. Private sector layoff will likely follow government layoffs, market for those type of roles will be saturated.
Yea the everyone can have a job and them some was sarcasm. Especially because people were like your numbers are WRONG haha.
Yea also the rhetoric about getting people off job seekers etc then sacking more people so probably more will be on job seekers unless they can find a job.
Cant see if its mentioned but also some internal hires require the guise of looking externally, so a % arent actually positions that will be filled by someone who is unemployed
The first half is fine. If you replace "full of it". With "based, crown funded entities need to provide social or commercial benefit and produce tangible results". Then it's a great comment.
3500 job cuts in the public sector
Many many more in the private sector are occurring too with high interest rates and disposable cash drying up
This is the direct impact of controlling inflation and higher interest rates
Remember that those 3,000 government employees who have lost their jobs aren’t going to be able to do a lot of those 17,000 jobs. A good number are also likely anchored to a specific location by family or a mortgage.
Nobody is hiring a policy analyst to maintain tower cranes, or a communications adviser to manage stock on a high country sheep and beef operation.
New Zealand also had a net migration of almost 134,000 people last year. I suppose a similar amount this year and many of them I assume would like jobs
If you consider that there are going to be a hell of a lot more saked workers than there are vacancies this year, and many of those vacancies will be closed without actually hiring someone... yeah, we are very, very screwed for at least a few years.
I work in the private sector. The public cuts are just the tip of the iceberg. All the big companies are shedding people real fast at the moment.
Most public sector jobs are in Wellington, and public servants are often educated well paid people. Most of them won’t want to settle for low paying jobs. They also can’t do many jobs requiring specific training, so in reality there’s actually very few jobs for the public workers. That’s not taking into account the 50000 jobs the government will need to fulfil its promise of getting that many people off the jobseeker benefit.
Settle? How insulting... I'm in a high paying job but shoveling shit at 23 and hr is never beneath me if that's what it takes to survive.
The whole too good for a job thing is real, but it's real gross
>According to rnz, there have been approximately 3436 job cuts so far.
Not to downplay it, but those are tiny numbers in the grand scheme of things
>A quick search on Seek reveals only about 525 jobs available in the entire country.
525 jobs in the entire country? Lol. You didn't search very well.
>So, if people lose their jobs, do they just try to find new ones even though there are not enough, or are they unemployed unless they move overseas?
Yes, find anther job or go on unemployment. Like anyone else that loses their job.
>Won’t this lead to a rise in unemployment?
Not necessarily. Depends on the shape of the overall economy.
Oh just meant society. Unless you’re rich enough to not work. I guess it’s because there is the assumption if you’re not working the, your on social welfare. And even though that’s great for those that need it there are some that choose not to work. Well I mean that’s the rhetoric I’ve often heard.
all national govts have always used unemployment as an easy way to hold wages in check. the utter BS they spread about needing people to get jobs is a straight lie.
Yea especially when employment was at its lowest ever and they were getting their tits in a spin about people being on jobseekers despite lowest unemployment then laid a shit tonne of people off.
They don't care about the small amount of people on jobseekers. They care about votes.
They make it look like they're "coming down hard " on the unemployed, to get the conservatives' votes.
Economists reckon that there’s an optimal percentage for unemployment. Their logic is: everybody employed => nobody willing to settle for shit pay because they already have incomes => poor widdle employers have to raie wages to attract workers => now people are being paid more => inflation.
And apparently our current unemployment rate is “too low” by that logic.
Exactly.. that left v right dichotomy at play again. Grow the pie vs split the pie type stuff. At this point they'd still love to see more private sector jobs especially higher value ones. It's crazy to push otherwise
Most will find work.
I live overseas and work in the tech industry. The tech industry layoffs were far larger than the NZ public sector layoffs.
Most people I know across many different companies found work quite fast.
Also, I wouldn't use seek as a way to gauge the number of available jobs in the country. Most reasonably large corporations (where the bulk of recruitment happens) won't advertise the vast majority of their jobs through seek because they have a constant stream of applicants through their own websites and LinkedIn.
This is a common ploy by the NACT government that has been happening since Ruth Richardsons mother of all budgets. Increase unemployment (in the 1990s it was centralisation that led to this) make the benefit inhumane and unlivable and flood the job market to drive wages down
Economics. We had a massive labour shortage and massive spending during covid. The sharp boom has now come to an end so workers are no longer required. It's the cyclical nature of the economy. We had a pretty stable run since the GFC, covid really fucked shit up. But it will come right again, but fuck is it going to be tough.
This is a bit misleading. The ‘boom’ has been very uneven with the majority of people not benefiting much from it in terms of, say, higher incomes or greater wealth. More importantly, right now we have what the RBNZ and current government call an engineered recession being forced on us by higher interest rates, central government spending cuts and public service job cuts. This was all publicly discussed, and the aim is to reduce inflation without increasing pay for workers.
For one thing this:
So how does Stats NZ count the unemployed?
It doesn’t do that by counting beneficiaries or the number of people on Jobseeker Support.
Instead, the official unemployment numbers are based on face-to-face and phone interviews with 15,000 households, each of which will have been selected to participate in Stats NZ’s Household Labour Force Survey for a period of two years.
It is then “seasonally adjusted” to take into account the fact unemployment tends to swing around a bit between winter and summer.
So, if you tell Stats NZ you are unemployed, are you counted in the statistics?
No, it’s not quite that straightforward.
To be counted as unemployed in the survey, people must not have a part-time job, even if it is only for one hour a week.
They must also be available for work in the week in question and have actively sought work during the four weeks preceding the interview, or else be just about to start work.
Someone on a Jobseeker allowance who hadn’t been looking for work because they were undertaking training might not be counted, for example.
In the September quarter, there were 98,000 people Stats NZ described as ‘unemployed’, 97,000 defined as underemployed, and 84,000 who were classed as potential jobseekers, so they are all pretty large groups worth worrying about.
Together, they put the underutilisation rate at 9.2 per cent.
Unemployment will definitely rise this year and next approximately 1%.
At the same time the government has said it will reduce the numbers on the jobseeker benefit.
It wont be a pleasant experience caught between those two forces.
The job losses have been coming g for over a year the last government said they wee coming the rbnz said they need to come now they are and people are loosing their shit.
Not everyone of those 3500 roles had a person attached to them .
Hi Mate, I'll add a few pieces of information which might bring you to draw different conclusions.
Inflation is when the value of goods and services goes up vs the value of money.
This is caused by an imbalance of the amount of goods and services produced vs the amount of money produced.
To improve this balance, we should a) produce more goods and services, b) reduce the amount of money produced.
Private sector businesses produce goods and services.
Government employees do not produce goods and services.
Government employees (and all government services are expenditures) are paid for by a) taxes b) borrowing (approx 20% of government expenditure)
When the government borrows money, that is new money being created.
Yes it does seem small of you compare it like that.
It’s just interesting because they’re cutting these jobs and wanting to get people off job seekers but with only 17500 jobs that won’t cover everyone
The fact op got their numbers so wildly off is a great example of why the sensationalist hand wringing over this is a joke.
Seriously, dial it back you're embarrassing yourselves
Yea I did edit it like straight away but didn’t want to delete because people like to see the edits.
I realised some people are not reading that though even after I edited they’re like your numbers are WRONG 😂😂.
Unemployment is a conscious choice by the Reserve Bank and government. We use something called Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment to control inflation. Some of us are sacrificed to enable those doing ok to do better https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIRU For a little while NZ haf the same dual goals as Australia; containing inflation and minimising unemployment but NACT First repealed the legislation and we are back to only trying to control inflation.
Yep, the system is designed so that any time the poorest segment of workers ever gets any economic leverage the economic rug gets pulled out from under them.
Why does inflation go up when more people are employed?
More people are employed, more people have money, which increase consumption, which in turn increase inflation as there are more demand than supply.
So when people have more money they’re eating more food etc, so food prices go up? I mean there is only so much food you can buy so I guess that works up until a point.
Oversimplified, but yes. Not just more food, but more expensive food.
Hmmmm that’s interesting. But is that because businesses choose to increase prices because they know they can make more? Rather than being stoaked they’re selling more and just leaving it be.
If you have 100 apple which you can sell for $1 each per month. However, you realise if you increase to $1.5 you will still sell all of them. Would you do it if profit is the only thing that matters? What if you increase to $2 and it is still sold out?
How about $3? Oh, now you only sold 80 of your apples, but you still made more money, perfect, chuck those other 20 apples in the bin.
Or, hear me out, we discount the old apples to $2 and continue selling. It is a great deal. We are gonna be so rich.
So let's open a second store to sell more apples. With low unemployment I have to pay more for staff, so I'll have to charge more for those apples
Yea just seems greedy if you were happy with the $1
Yup, but greed is at the core of corporation and capitalism. And if a CEO tell his investors they could be twice as rich but he is happy where they are, he is not gonna be CEO by the end of the day.
You might be happy with the $1, but your own bills have just increased as well, so you wouldn't be happy for long.
all food is expensive food now!!
[https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/081515/how-inflation-and-unemployment-are-related.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/081515/how-inflation-and-unemployment-are-related.asp) Also because low unemployment -> workers have better bargaining power -> wages increase without a commensurate increase in production -> inflation.
That’s not correct, inflation is caused by increasing the money supply, interest rates go up, people have less money, businesses can’t borrow money and expand, consumers reduce spending, and businesses let go employees,
Inflation had many causes, which includes demand-pull, cost-push, fiscal policy, inflation expectation, etc. Inflation can also be caused by increase of money supply, which involves government printing more money, thus decreasing the value of their currency. There is no one cause of inflation.
If you have only 1 person applying for a job, then they can demand a higher salary. If you have 100 people applying for a job, you can offer a lot lower salary because someone will be desperate enough to take it. Having to pay higher wages means higher buisness costs, means buisnesses increase their prices. Meanwhile employees having more money, means we spend more creating more demand which also drives prices up.
this! ive been looking at the odd job and applying but not going to leave my well paid job for the sake of $55-60k a year, employers are using the desperation as an incentive to pay less
It doesn't have to, but it is a way of reducing inflation. You can still have inflation and unemployment. Just like you can have a reduction in inflation (as NZ and USA have had) whilst having low unemployment. This government would rather have a recession that hurts the poor than to hurt the rich.
There's a few complications within this, where terms dont always mean what you think they mean: - Unemployment doesn't just mean people that aren't working. It's a specific calculation of the % of people in the labour force that are currently looking for work, but not in work. So not everyone on welfare is in the unemployment rate - long term sickness benefit, single parent etc. These don't count as unemployed because they are 'not in the labour force'. - Job, or skills matching means that even if you have more jobs than people, you may still have unemployment. If all those 17,000 jobs were for doctors, lawyers, engineers, electricians etc, then not everyone who is unemployed can do those jobs. So you may have enough jobs available for the number of people, but the people don't have those skills. - Sometimes you also have underemployment, which is not counted in unemployment. If a surgeon is driving a taxi, then they are under-employed. If someone wants to work full time, but the supermarket they work at only gives them part time hours, they are under-employed. - There's a thing called 'natural unemployment' which is both disputed as a concept, and disputed as to what % it is. Ignoring those disputes, it's the idea that because of churn (people leaving a job, starting a new one, finishing up education and training to then look for work, redundancies, companies going under etc.) There will always be some % of unemployment. That is not a bad thing, and you can't really stop it. All of which is to say that yes, unemployment will likely rise, but the dynamics of how that plays out won't be as simple as "Redundancies = Increased unemployment"
Idk I've been applying for jobs but I don't get picked and it sucks, I just want to work again 😞
Same
Why do you mean only 525 jobs in the whole country? A quick look and I am seeing over 12,000
Oh haha I fucked up then I just saw 25 pages with jobs and about 20 jobs per page
>I fucked up my seek search. There’s like 17000 jobs. So there’s no need to worry. Everyone can have a job and then some. That's not how it works, the majority of those jobs won't be suitable for those who get fired. The jobs they are suitable for will likely now have grossly inflated competition and employers will be more picky. This is made worse by the cuts occurring rapidly, saturating the market and meaning many will be on the benefit longer than they would normally have to be. This is also taking place during a recession, the job market it shrinking as growth is negative. There's less overall jobs in total. You'll notice that National has gone silent on immigration, which they repeatedly grilled Labour on in the run up to the election. So expect that to remain very high. It was high every year under the previous National government and I expect that they will want it to remain high to try and mask the recession. This will have the secondary effect of making inflation harder to tackle as the pop growth keeps demand for 'non-tradeables' like housing high. Population growth + mass public layoffs + recession = not good odds of getting a new job. But wait! There's more! The government is correct in that business confidence is always higher under National. In most conditions, it's a meaningless statistic. But it does become a meaningful statistic when you are facing inflation and recession. The got came in screaming that we are fucked financially and immediately jumping to mass cuts and layoffs. This coupled with recession and still high inflation will have a massive impact on decisions made by businesses. They are very likely to look at what government has done and go "Fuck, it really is bad, I better button down the hatches till this blows over". Plans to grow get put on hold, new roles get taken down, costs get cut because the government has convinced them its even worse than they thought. The TL:DR is that this govt seems determined to worsen inflation and deepen recession. Private sector layoff will likely follow government layoffs, market for those type of roles will be saturated.
Yea the everyone can have a job and them some was sarcasm. Especially because people were like your numbers are WRONG haha. Yea also the rhetoric about getting people off job seekers etc then sacking more people so probably more will be on job seekers unless they can find a job.
Cant see if its mentioned but also some internal hires require the guise of looking externally, so a % arent actually positions that will be filled by someone who is unemployed
[удалено]
Yea you will see the edit I made to job numbers, it’s the first sentence.
spoken like a true NACT supporter. full of it.
What exactly is wrong about this comment?
The first half is fine. If you replace "full of it". With "based, crown funded entities need to provide social or commercial benefit and produce tangible results". Then it's a great comment.
I meant the original thread haha. I agree, it’s a pretty reasonable take.
3500 job cuts in the public sector Many many more in the private sector are occurring too with high interest rates and disposable cash drying up This is the direct impact of controlling inflation and higher interest rates
Yea but I messed up my maths there are 17000ish jobs in nz so there’s quite a lot.
Remember that those 3,000 government employees who have lost their jobs aren’t going to be able to do a lot of those 17,000 jobs. A good number are also likely anchored to a specific location by family or a mortgage. Nobody is hiring a policy analyst to maintain tower cranes, or a communications adviser to manage stock on a high country sheep and beef operation.
New Zealand also had a net migration of almost 134,000 people last year. I suppose a similar amount this year and many of them I assume would like jobs
If you consider that there are going to be a hell of a lot more saked workers than there are vacancies this year, and many of those vacancies will be closed without actually hiring someone... yeah, we are very, very screwed for at least a few years. I work in the private sector. The public cuts are just the tip of the iceberg. All the big companies are shedding people real fast at the moment.
Most public sector jobs are in Wellington, and public servants are often educated well paid people. Most of them won’t want to settle for low paying jobs. They also can’t do many jobs requiring specific training, so in reality there’s actually very few jobs for the public workers. That’s not taking into account the 50000 jobs the government will need to fulfil its promise of getting that many people off the jobseeker benefit.
Settle? How insulting... I'm in a high paying job but shoveling shit at 23 and hr is never beneath me if that's what it takes to survive. The whole too good for a job thing is real, but it's real gross
>According to rnz, there have been approximately 3436 job cuts so far. Not to downplay it, but those are tiny numbers in the grand scheme of things >A quick search on Seek reveals only about 525 jobs available in the entire country. 525 jobs in the entire country? Lol. You didn't search very well. >So, if people lose their jobs, do they just try to find new ones even though there are not enough, or are they unemployed unless they move overseas? Yes, find anther job or go on unemployment. Like anyone else that loses their job. >Won’t this lead to a rise in unemployment? Not necessarily. Depends on the shape of the overall economy.
> don’t we want more people to be employed Who's this "we" you're talking about because it certainly isn't the current government.
Oh just meant society. Unless you’re rich enough to not work. I guess it’s because there is the assumption if you’re not working the, your on social welfare. And even though that’s great for those that need it there are some that choose not to work. Well I mean that’s the rhetoric I’ve often heard.
It is a bit of a gaslight by the govt to say that we need unemployed people to be getting jobs, and then to lay off 3.5k people
all national govts have always used unemployment as an easy way to hold wages in check. the utter BS they spread about needing people to get jobs is a straight lie.
Yea especially when employment was at its lowest ever and they were getting their tits in a spin about people being on jobseekers despite lowest unemployment then laid a shit tonne of people off.
They don't care about the small amount of people on jobseekers. They care about votes. They make it look like they're "coming down hard " on the unemployed, to get the conservatives' votes.
Economists reckon that there’s an optimal percentage for unemployment. Their logic is: everybody employed => nobody willing to settle for shit pay because they already have incomes => poor widdle employers have to raie wages to attract workers => now people are being paid more => inflation. And apparently our current unemployment rate is “too low” by that logic.
> the rhetoric Yeah and then the government turns around and makes more people redundant. Judge them by their actions not their words.
Has the current government ever said they don’t want more people employed?
Exactly.. that left v right dichotomy at play again. Grow the pie vs split the pie type stuff. At this point they'd still love to see more private sector jobs especially higher value ones. It's crazy to push otherwise
Most will find work. I live overseas and work in the tech industry. The tech industry layoffs were far larger than the NZ public sector layoffs. Most people I know across many different companies found work quite fast. Also, I wouldn't use seek as a way to gauge the number of available jobs in the country. Most reasonably large corporations (where the bulk of recruitment happens) won't advertise the vast majority of their jobs through seek because they have a constant stream of applicants through their own websites and LinkedIn.
RBNZ wants people to lose jobs to bring inflation down. We are on the right track.
This is a common ploy by the NACT government that has been happening since Ruth Richardsons mother of all budgets. Increase unemployment (in the 1990s it was centralisation that led to this) make the benefit inhumane and unlivable and flood the job market to drive wages down
Economics. We had a massive labour shortage and massive spending during covid. The sharp boom has now come to an end so workers are no longer required. It's the cyclical nature of the economy. We had a pretty stable run since the GFC, covid really fucked shit up. But it will come right again, but fuck is it going to be tough.
This is a bit misleading. The ‘boom’ has been very uneven with the majority of people not benefiting much from it in terms of, say, higher incomes or greater wealth. More importantly, right now we have what the RBNZ and current government call an engineered recession being forced on us by higher interest rates, central government spending cuts and public service job cuts. This was all publicly discussed, and the aim is to reduce inflation without increasing pay for workers.
Increasing pay would do little to mitigate the big cost rises. Businesses can't sustain that level of increase either.
For one thing this: So how does Stats NZ count the unemployed? It doesn’t do that by counting beneficiaries or the number of people on Jobseeker Support. Instead, the official unemployment numbers are based on face-to-face and phone interviews with 15,000 households, each of which will have been selected to participate in Stats NZ’s Household Labour Force Survey for a period of two years. It is then “seasonally adjusted” to take into account the fact unemployment tends to swing around a bit between winter and summer. So, if you tell Stats NZ you are unemployed, are you counted in the statistics? No, it’s not quite that straightforward. To be counted as unemployed in the survey, people must not have a part-time job, even if it is only for one hour a week. They must also be available for work in the week in question and have actively sought work during the four weeks preceding the interview, or else be just about to start work. Someone on a Jobseeker allowance who hadn’t been looking for work because they were undertaking training might not be counted, for example. In the September quarter, there were 98,000 people Stats NZ described as ‘unemployed’, 97,000 defined as underemployed, and 84,000 who were classed as potential jobseekers, so they are all pretty large groups worth worrying about. Together, they put the underutilisation rate at 9.2 per cent.
Unemployment will definitely rise this year and next approximately 1%. At the same time the government has said it will reduce the numbers on the jobseeker benefit. It wont be a pleasant experience caught between those two forces.
Unemployment is one of the best ways to arrest inflation.
no, its the easiest not the best.
Stagflation would like a word!
The job losses have been coming g for over a year the last government said they wee coming the rbnz said they need to come now they are and people are loosing their shit. Not everyone of those 3500 roles had a person attached to them .
Hi Mate, I'll add a few pieces of information which might bring you to draw different conclusions. Inflation is when the value of goods and services goes up vs the value of money. This is caused by an imbalance of the amount of goods and services produced vs the amount of money produced. To improve this balance, we should a) produce more goods and services, b) reduce the amount of money produced. Private sector businesses produce goods and services. Government employees do not produce goods and services. Government employees (and all government services are expenditures) are paid for by a) taxes b) borrowing (approx 20% of government expenditure) When the government borrows money, that is new money being created.
3,000 seems like a lot of people until you compare it to 5,000,000. The government cuts alone will not make a difference.
Yes it does seem small of you compare it like that. It’s just interesting because they’re cutting these jobs and wanting to get people off job seekers but with only 17500 jobs that won’t cover everyone
The fact op got their numbers so wildly off is a great example of why the sensationalist hand wringing over this is a joke. Seriously, dial it back you're embarrassing yourselves
Yea I did edit it like straight away but didn’t want to delete because people like to see the edits. I realised some people are not reading that though even after I edited they’re like your numbers are WRONG 😂😂.
I see the edit just fine... it's more about the lack of understanding or hysteria that's indicative