The Washington Times reports, Jobless rate dips to 4.7 percent. Unemployment declined to 4.7 percent last month, approaching a five-year low, as the economy churned out 211,000 new jobs -- a sign of steady economic growth and good news for cash-strapped consumers.
In the US "jobless" and "unemployed" are interchangeable terms but not so in New Zealand - a mistake journalists commonly make.
NZ's unemployment rate is 3.6 percent but our jobless rate is 6.4 percent.
Unless people are actively seeking work they are not officially unemployed.
The US gathers its employment statistics in the same way as New Zealand - through a Household Labour Force survey. Their unemployment rate measure is comparable to ours. However, they do not measure a separate category and call them "jobless".
And isn't it interesting that a country with a population 72 times the size of New Zealand can get their stats out quicker. Our March statistics have yet to appear.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Journalists in many countries use the shorthand term “jobless” to describe the official unemployment rate. This is the case with the Washington Times report you’ve cited.
In fact, the US does have broader measures of unemployment. In the list of alternative measures at this link, U-3 is the official rate and U-5 is probably equivalent to the jobless rate published by Statistics New Zealand. It was 5.6 percent in March 2006.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm
Is it really so surprising that richer countries with larger populations have more frequent surveys and produce statistics more quickly?
Quibbler, I wasn't criticising US journalists for interchanging the terms. I was referring to NZ journalists who operate in a country where the two terms have officially different meanings.
If U-5 is equivalent to our jobless rate then we are behind the US (at least while comparing the most recent info we have). Interesting.
Regarding the dissemination of information, apparently, for a number of years, the NZ statisticians were ahead of Australia and certainly Britain in the release and reliability of information.
Thanks for the link. I learnt something new.
You say
Unless people are actively seeking work they are not officially unemployed.
There are many people who are not
"actively seeking work" that are "officially unemployed" - they are collecting benefits but not job seeking. Ome ofthem are working part time and are supposedto be looking for full time work but they arent.
Post a Comment