Tuesday, December 11, 2007

This level of spin is disgusting

Let's go back to what Ruth Dyson said yesterday;

The number of New Zealanders receiving an unemployment benefit is at a 28 year low, Social Development and Employment Minister Ruth Dyson said today.

“In December 1999, when the Labour-led government came into office, 161,000 people were receiving an unemployment benefit. Over 141,000 have come off this benefit since then, with just over 20,000 people receiving it now. These numbers haven’t been this low since 1979. In addition, this government has radically reduced youth unemployment numbers,” said Ruth Dyson.

Now consider the following;

Those on the 'Unemployment Benefit related' numbered 1,214 whereas the number on 'other main benefits' numbered 3,214. Yet the definition of 'other main benefits' includes Unemployment Benefit Training and Unemployment Benefit Hardship, etc. Surely these would be considered Unemployment related. Not if you don't want to count them.

Here's another thing.

Between 1999 and 2006 the numbers dropped from 161,000 to 40,000 or 75 percent.

This chart relates to ALL unemployment related benefits and shows expenditure has only dropped 54 percent.

Obviously some gains have been made under Labour. Or perhaps in spite of Labour. But why do they have to spin so much?? And calling it 'spin' is being very polite. The practice really does disgust me.

Update; Even allowing for cost of living adjustment, which a critic on another blog has pointed out I have neglected, the expenditure of $819 million is too high for the publicised 40,000 unemployment beneficiaries. The basic rate per year ranges from $6,000 to $13,000. Whereas the figures made sense in 1999 they don't in 2006. The figures above are taken from the MSD Statistical Report which is not the official measure for expenditure but they serve the purpose of showing that the numbers touted are by no means the full story.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The sad thing is this.
We all want full employment.
Some people need financial assistance while they look for employment. That is reasonable.
The Government shows how successful it is by how few people need that financial assistance.
Low numbers, gold medal, re-election. That is reasonable,too.
But then we find that the Government is using performance-enhancing statistics.
The numbers are artificially low because they are hiding the problem under other labels.
Cheats have no self respect, so they steal yours.
They envy success.
Remember the Olympic ice skater who had someone smash her opponent's knee with a hammer?
Anything goes to make themselves look successful.
Is that our representative?
Our role model?
Our future?
And the sad thing is, decent trusting people believe in them.