Unemployment climbs back to 6 per cent   :(

Date
    February 18, 2016
    Sydney Morning Herald

The unemployment rate jumped back to 6 per cent in January, as the job market shrunk by about 8000, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.   :(

The official rate, which many economists have been questioning, compares with 5.8 per cent in December.



The result was below expectations, and the Australian dollar immediately dropped about 0.5 per cent, to around US71.40¢.

The ABS said on Thursday that, seasonally-adjusted, the number of full-time employed dropped 40,600, while the number of part-time employed increased by 32,700.


The participation rate held steady at 65.2 per cent.

The ABS had warned that the rotation of half its survey group may have distorted the month-on-month comparison.   :(

Hmm... 6 percent.

I wonder if we'll ever see the unemployment numbers shown as an actual number ever again? Like they used to do many years ago.

I think I've mentioned this once or twice before but it seems to me like they started giving the unemployment figures as a percentage instead of a number when it was getting close to the 'politically sensitive' one million mark. I seem to recall a number of about 975,000 before it was changed to a percentage.

And that was a LONG time ago.

Anyone prepared to take a guess at what the actual unemployment number would be today? My guess would be at least a million and a half.

As others have pointed out before, in the current climate of rock-bottom wage growth, unemployment is expected to stay relatively low. But it doesn't necessarily point to a healthy economy

The unemployment figures are a statistical sample, so they can be expected to bounce around a bit month to month.

There's not enough jobs yet the high ups are pumping the country full of immigrants. That doesn't make sense.

double plus good wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 11:42am:

There's not enough jobs yet the high ups are pumping the country full of immigrants. That doesn't make sense.

The pollies here thinks its a great idea because they know most of them will have to live off credit cards and so they can fuel the economy with more and more debt that the pollies can tax !!

Not only that more migrants mean bigger hospitals and more staff thus creating larger non productive industries !!

Mass immigration is lazy policy that only works in the short term but four a 3 year political cycle that's all they need ;)

1 million new jobs  :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 11:51am:

double plus good wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:42am: There's not enough jobs yet the high ups are pumping the country full of immigrants. That doesn't make sense. The pollies here thinks its a great idea because they know most of them will have to live off credit cards and so they can fuel the economy with more and more debt that the pollies can tax !! Not only that more migrants mean bigger hospitals and more staff thus creating larger non productive industries !! Mass immigration is lazy policy that only works in the short term but four a 3 year political cycle that's all they need ;)

Simplistic logic that ignores a number of complicating factors:

1. There is a lack of essential skills in areas such as medicine that can only be filled by importing them. And its not as if we haven't tried to fill that shortage by training locals.

2. There's always going to be a certain level of "mass" immigration that is unavoidable - namely through family reunion and refugee intake - which no one seriously disputes we don't have a moral obligation towards.

3. a very large proportion of our immigrant population consists of people from the UK and NZ who are given a virtually "open door" permission into and out of Australia - and therefore are not counted or affected under the official immigration program.

While there is no doubt scope to tighten up on certain areas like 457 visa rorting, there is no evidence, nor any logic to the claim that current immigration levels is causing unemployment in Australia - nor indeed any evidence to suggest it is causing any sort of decline in living standards. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 12:09pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:51am: double plus good wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:42am: There's not enough jobs yet the high ups are pumping the country full of immigrants. That doesn't make sense. The pollies here thinks its a great idea because they know most of them will have to live off credit cards and so they can fuel the economy with more and more debt that the pollies can tax !! Not only that more migrants mean bigger hospitals and more staff thus creating larger non productive industries !! Mass immigration is lazy policy that only works in the short term but four a 3 year political cycle that's all they need ;) Simplistic logic that ignores a number of complicating factors: 1. There is a lack of essential skills in areas such as medicine that can only be filled by importing them. And its not as if we haven't tried to fill that shortage by training locals. 2. There's always going to be a certain level of "mass" immigration that is unavoidable - namely through family reunion and refugee intake - which no one seriously disputes we don't have a moral obligation towards. 3. a very large proportion of our immigrant population consists of people from the UK and NZ who are given a virtually "open door" permission into and out of Australia - and therefore are not counted or affected under the official immigration program. While there is no doubt scope to tighten up on certain areas like 457 visa rorting, there is no evidence, nor any logic to the claim that current immigration levels is causing unemployment in Australia - nor indeed any evidence to suggest it is causing any sort of decline in living standards.

So how do you feel when a person who just flew in takes a job away from a person who's family has been here for generations. It happens all of the time.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 12:09pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:51am: double plus good wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:42am: There's not enough jobs yet the high ups are pumping the country full of immigrants. That doesn't make sense. The pollies here thinks its a great idea because they know most of them will have to live off credit cards and so they can fuel the economy with more and more debt that the pollies can tax !! Not only that more migrants mean bigger hospitals and more staff thus creating larger non productive industries !! Mass immigration is lazy policy that only works in the short term but four a 3 year political cycle that's all they need ;) Simplistic logic that ignores a number of complicating factors: 1. There is a lack of essential skills in areas such as medicine that can only be filled by importing them. And its not as if we haven't tried to fill that shortage by training locals. 2. There's always going to be a certain level of "mass" immigration that is unavoidable - namely through family reunion and refugee intake - which no one seriously disputes we don't have a moral obligation towards. 3. a very large proportion of our immigrant population consists of people from the UK and NZ who are given a virtually "open door" permission into and out of Australia - and therefore are not counted or affected under the official immigration program. While there is no doubt scope to tighten up on certain areas like 457 visa rorting, there is no evidence, nor any logic to the claim that current immigration levels is causing unemployment in Australia - nor indeed any evidence to suggest it is causing any sort of decline in living standards.

That is nothing more than a self fulfilling prophecy. Bring more people into the country and the services industries expand but the real wealth creating industries do not change. Pollies are just using mass immigration as a blunt tool for running their economies for short term gains as well as keeping the property ponzi scheme going and stopping the banks from collapsing which are over leveraged and over exposed to a property bubble !

In the 50's mass immigration worked because we had real productive industries requiring semi and unskilled labour forces. The 1950's is long gone and this idea that you can create prosperity from mass immigration and selling cups of coffee and training up more medical staff is an absolute myth.

wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 11:04am:

Unemployment climbs back to 6 per cent

can't be  .... Maria says unemployment is falling :D :D

Quote:

Unemployment climbs back to 6 per cent

A more accurate statement:

A new statistical sample of the Australian population had 6.0% of the people sampled reporting as unemployed according to the standard method used for counting someone as unemployed.

Pedantic, I know, but so many people assume that the ABS sample has no margin of error. It does, because it is a sample. That's why the figures changing by 0.2% month to month isn't that unusual.

John Smith wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 4:11pm:

wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:04am: Unemployment climbs back to 6 per cent  can't be  .... Maria says unemployment is falling :D :D

Nah, that'd be her IQ.

Kat wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 6:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 4:11pm: wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 11:04am: Unemployment climbs back to 6 per cent  can't be  .... Maria says unemployment is falling :D :D Nah, that'd be her IQ.

boom boom :D :D

This week on Fuxtel - the Australian Classic movie -

"Forty Thousand Less Men".

The Liberal Party have added to the unemployment line of late....Surely they will take some of the responsibility???

;) ;) ;)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 6:41pm:

The Liberal Party have added to the unemployment line of late....Surely they will take some of the responsibility??? ;) ;) ;)

bet they don't.

I await for the lib supporters to refute this rise - which didn't apply if the numbers go the other way.  It amuses me when i see the double standards.

Probably worth watching for a few months and hope the numbers stabilise or improve again.

Don't want to look as silly as Longy chucking a party at the first sign of a possible promising trend.

01/14: 6.0
02/14: 5.9
03/14: 5.9
04/14: 5.8
05/14: 5.9
06/14: 6.1
07/14: 6.2
08/14: 6.1
09/14: 6.2
10/14: 6.3
11/14: 6.3
12/14: 6.1
01/15: 6.4 (highest since 2002)
02/15: 6.2
03/15: 6.1
04/15: 6.2
05/15: 5.9
06/15: 6.0
07/15: 6.3
08/15: 6.2
09/15: 6.2
10/15: 5.9
11/15: 5.8
12/15: 5.8
01/16: 6.0

Unemployment is trending down slowly from the 6.4% peak but it is still higher than at any time during Labor's six years in office. The economy is still sluggish with below-trend growth. At this rate we're not going to see unemployment below 5.0% for 3 years or more.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 6:41pm:

The Liberal Party have added to the unemployment line of late....Surely they will take some of the responsibility??? ;) ;) ;)

How do you figure that? You are happy to claim the GFC as the cause of unemployment rising last time - despite a mining boom - and now we have a global economic problem along with a crash in the resources sector. The only surprise is that unemployment has dropped in the past 12 months.

Bam wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 9:14pm:

01/14: 6.0 02/14: 5.9 03/14: 5.9 04/14: 5.8 05/14: 5.9 06/14: 6.1 07/14: 6.2 08/14: 6.1 09/14: 6.2 10/14: 6.3 11/14: 6.3 12/14: 6.1 01/15: 6.4 (highest since 2002) 02/15: 6.2 03/15: 6.1 04/15: 6.2 05/15: 5.9 06/15: 6.0 07/15: 6.3 08/15: 6.2 09/15: 6.2 10/15: 5.9 11/15: 5.8 12/15: 5.8 01/16: 6.0 Unemployment is trending down slowly from the 6.4% peak but it is still higher than at any time during Labor's six years in office. The economy is still sluggish with below-trend growth. At this rate we're not going to see unemployment below 5.0% for 3 years or more.

Conveniently ignoring that Labor increased the unemployment rates by 50% during a mining boom.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 8:22am:

Bam wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 9:14pm: 01/14: 6.0 02/14: 5.9 03/14: 5.9 04/14: 5.8 05/14: 5.9 06/14: 6.1 07/14: 6.2 08/14: 6.1 09/14: 6.2 10/14: 6.3 11/14: 6.3 12/14: 6.1 01/15: 6.4 (highest since 2002) 02/15: 6.2 03/15: 6.1 04/15: 6.2 05/15: 5.9 06/15: 6.0 07/15: 6.3 08/15: 6.2 09/15: 6.2 10/15: 5.9 11/15: 5.8 12/15: 5.8 01/16: 6.0 Unemployment is trending down slowly from the 6.4% peak but it is still higher than at any time during Labor's six years in office. The economy is still sluggish with below-trend growth. At this rate we're not going to see unemployment below 5.0% for 3 years or more. Conveniently ignoring that Labor increased the unemployment rates by 50% during a mining boom.

Mining doesn't actually employ a lot of people. The capital to labour ratio is really rather high. More so during the investment phase before anything is produced.

The list of unemployed by date is not much use without also quoting the participation rate.

The figures for both labor's period and the coalition aren't that wonderful. They have been moderated by appallingly low wages growth and falling participation rate.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Australia_LFPR_1978_2014M5.jpg

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Australia_real_wages_3_inflation_measures_1998_June_2015.jpg

Missing , Libs mining boom , last seen with budget emergency

mariacostel wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 8:22am:

Bam wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 9:14pm: 01/14: 6.0 02/14: 5.9 03/14: 5.9 04/14: 5.8 05/14: 5.9 06/14: 6.1 07/14: 6.2 08/14: 6.1 09/14: 6.2 10/14: 6.3 11/14: 6.3 12/14: 6.1 01/15: 6.4 (highest since 2002) 02/15: 6.2 03/15: 6.1 04/15: 6.2 05/15: 5.9 06/15: 6.0 07/15: 6.3 08/15: 6.2 09/15: 6.2 10/15: 5.9 11/15: 5.8 12/15: 5.8 01/16: 6.0 Unemployment is trending down slowly from the 6.4% peak but it is still higher than at any time during Labor's six years in office. The economy is still sluggish with below-trend growth. At this rate we're not going to see unemployment below 5.0% for 3 years or more. Conveniently ignoring that Labor increased the unemployment rates by 50% during a mining boom.

Conveniently ignoring the fact that the Liberals are in power right now.

Its time wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 8:49am:

Missing , Libs mining boom , last seen with budget emergency

you mean the GLOBAL mining boom, right?

crocodile wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 8:46am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:22am: Bam wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 9:14pm: 01/14: 6.0 02/14: 5.9 03/14: 5.9 04/14: 5.8 05/14: 5.9 06/14: 6.1 07/14: 6.2 08/14: 6.1 09/14: 6.2 10/14: 6.3 11/14: 6.3 12/14: 6.1 01/15: 6.4 (highest since 2002) 02/15: 6.2 03/15: 6.1 04/15: 6.2 05/15: 5.9 06/15: 6.0 07/15: 6.3 08/15: 6.2 09/15: 6.2 10/15: 5.9 11/15: 5.8 12/15: 5.8 01/16: 6.0 Unemployment is trending down slowly from the 6.4% peak but it is still higher than at any time during Labor's six years in office. The economy is still sluggish with below-trend growth. At this rate we're not going to see unemployment below 5.0% for 3 years or more. Conveniently ignoring that Labor increased the unemployment rates by 50% during a mining boom. Mining doesn't actually employ a lot of people. The capital to labour ratio is really rather high. More so during the investment phase before anything is produced.

Exactly. What is the figure for the mining industry, 1% of the workforce?

Dnarever wrote on Feb 18^th, 2016 at 8:45pm:

Probably worth watching for a few months and hope the numbers stabilise or improve again. Don't want to look as silly as Longy chucking a party at the first sign of a possible promising trend.

Two extra jobs and Longie is in Seventh Heaven....

Bam wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 9:08am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:46am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:22am: Bam wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 9:14pm: 01/14: 6.0 02/14: 5.9 03/14: 5.9 04/14: 5.8 05/14: 5.9 06/14: 6.1 07/14: 6.2 08/14: 6.1 09/14: 6.2 10/14: 6.3 11/14: 6.3 12/14: 6.1 01/15: 6.4 (highest since 2002) 02/15: 6.2 03/15: 6.1 04/15: 6.2 05/15: 5.9 06/15: 6.0 07/15: 6.3 08/15: 6.2 09/15: 6.2 10/15: 5.9 11/15: 5.8 12/15: 5.8 01/16: 6.0 Unemployment is trending down slowly from the 6.4% peak but it is still higher than at any time during Labor's six years in office. The economy is still sluggish with below-trend growth. At this rate we're not going to see unemployment below 5.0% for 3 years or more. Conveniently ignoring that Labor increased the unemployment rates by 50% during a mining boom. Mining doesn't actually employ a lot of people. The capital to labour ratio is really rather high. More so during the investment phase before anything is produced. Exactly. What is the figure for the mining industry, 1% of the workforce?

So if the mining industry is so irrelevant and minor then how come the end of the boom is causing so much difficulty?

It never occurred to you that a booming mining industry does not increase employment significantly in a whole host of other sectors?

mariacostel wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 12:24pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 9:08am: crocodile wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:46am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:22am: Bam wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 9:14pm: 01/14: 6.0 02/14: 5.9 03/14: 5.9 04/14: 5.8 05/14: 5.9 06/14: 6.1 07/14: 6.2 08/14: 6.1 09/14: 6.2 10/14: 6.3 11/14: 6.3 12/14: 6.1 01/15: 6.4 (highest since 2002) 02/15: 6.2 03/15: 6.1 04/15: 6.2 05/15: 5.9 06/15: 6.0 07/15: 6.3 08/15: 6.2 09/15: 6.2 10/15: 5.9 11/15: 5.8 12/15: 5.8 01/16: 6.0 Unemployment is trending down slowly from the 6.4% peak but it is still higher than at any time during Labor's six years in office. The economy is still sluggish with below-trend growth. At this rate we're not going to see unemployment below 5.0% for 3 years or more. Conveniently ignoring that Labor increased the unemployment rates by 50% during a mining boom. Mining doesn't actually employ a lot of people. The capital to labour ratio is really rather high. More so during the investment phase before anything is produced. Exactly. What is the figure for the mining industry, 1% of the workforce? So if the mining industry is so irrelevant and minor then how come the end of the boom is causing so much difficulty? It never occurred to you that a booming mining industry does not increase employment significantly in a whole host of other sectors?

You've got the cart before the horse Maria. The so called boom is busted because of a struggling world economy and the consequent fall in commodity prices, not the other way around.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 8:22am:

Bam wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 9:14pm: 01/14: 6.0 02/14: 5.9 03/14: 5.9 04/14: 5.8 05/14: 5.9 06/14: 6.1 07/14: 6.2 08/14: 6.1 09/14: 6.2 10/14: 6.3 11/14: 6.3 12/14: 6.1 01/15: 6.4 (highest since 2002) 02/15: 6.2 03/15: 6.1 04/15: 6.2 05/15: 5.9 06/15: 6.0 07/15: 6.3 08/15: 6.2 09/15: 6.2 10/15: 5.9 11/15: 5.8 12/15: 5.8 01/16: 6.0 Unemployment is trending down slowly from the 6.4% peak but it is still higher than at any time during Labor's six years in office. The economy is still sluggish with below-trend growth. At this rate we're not going to see unemployment below 5.0% for 3 years or more. Conveniently ignoring that Labor increased the unemployment rates by 50% during a mining boom.

The reality is that the GFC easily swallowed the mining boom.

Gee,  all those people who were having a bit of a break over christmas and new year suddenly start looking for a job and so there are more job-seekers.

earth shattering news  ;)

mariacostel wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 12:24pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 9:08am: crocodile wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:46am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:22am: Bam wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 9:14pm: 01/14: 6.0 02/14: 5.9 03/14: 5.9 04/14: 5.8 05/14: 5.9 06/14: 6.1 07/14: 6.2 08/14: 6.1 09/14: 6.2 10/14: 6.3 11/14: 6.3 12/14: 6.1 01/15: 6.4 (highest since 2002) 02/15: 6.2 03/15: 6.1 04/15: 6.2 05/15: 5.9 06/15: 6.0 07/15: 6.3 08/15: 6.2 09/15: 6.2 10/15: 5.9 11/15: 5.8 12/15: 5.8 01/16: 6.0 Unemployment is trending down slowly from the 6.4% peak but it is still higher than at any time during Labor's six years in office. The economy is still sluggish with below-trend growth. At this rate we're not going to see unemployment below 5.0% for 3 years or more. Conveniently ignoring that Labor increased the unemployment rates by 50% during a mining boom. Mining doesn't actually employ a lot of people. The capital to labour ratio is really rather high. More so during the investment phase before anything is produced. Exactly. What is the figure for the mining industry, 1% of the workforce? So if the mining industry is so irrelevant and minor then how come the end of the boom is causing so much difficulty? It never occurred to you that a booming mining industry does not increase employment significantly in a whole host of other sectors?

mariacostel wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 9:06am:

you mean the GLOBAL mining boom, right?

;D ;D ;D ;D

The most succinct rebuttal is beating someone over the head with their own words.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 1:30pm:

Gee,  all those people who were having a bit of a break over christmas and new year suddenly start looking for a job and so there are more job-seekers. earth shattering news  ;)

Find out what "seasonally adjusted" means, then post again.

crocodile wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 1:02pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 12:24pm: Bam wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 9:08am: crocodile wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:46am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:22am: Bam wrote on Feb 18th, 2016 at 9:14pm: 01/14: 6.0 02/14: 5.9 03/14: 5.9 04/14: 5.8 05/14: 5.9 06/14: 6.1 07/14: 6.2 08/14: 6.1 09/14: 6.2 10/14: 6.3 11/14: 6.3 12/14: 6.1 01/15: 6.4 (highest since 2002) 02/15: 6.2 03/15: 6.1 04/15: 6.2 05/15: 5.9 06/15: 6.0 07/15: 6.3 08/15: 6.2 09/15: 6.2 10/15: 5.9 11/15: 5.8 12/15: 5.8 01/16: 6.0 Unemployment is trending down slowly from the 6.4% peak but it is still higher than at any time during Labor's six years in office. The economy is still sluggish with below-trend growth. At this rate we're not going to see unemployment below 5.0% for 3 years or more. Conveniently ignoring that Labor increased the unemployment rates by 50% during a mining boom. Mining doesn't actually employ a lot of people. The capital to labour ratio is really rather high. More so during the investment phase before anything is produced. Exactly. What is the figure for the mining industry, 1% of the workforce? So if the mining industry is so irrelevant and minor then how come the end of the boom is causing so much difficulty? It never occurred to you that a booming mining industry does not increase employment significantly in a whole host of other sectors? You've got the cart before the horse Maria. The so called boom is busted because of a struggling world economy and the consequent fall in commodity prices, not the other way around.

You might want to re-read my comment and then try again and make a response related to what I actually said.

Be a thriving economy if the Libs made the transition from fossils to clean energy , Labor gave the Libs 4.5billion worth of projects on a silver platter and they still feeerked it up  ::)

mariacostel wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 9:06am:

Its time wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:49am: Missing , Libs mining boom , last seen with budget emergency you mean the GLOBAL mining boom, right?

When you have spent 5 months crowing about the Liberals bringing down the unemployment rate you have no place to hide when the numbers go the other way.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 3:17pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 9:06am: Its time wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:49am: Missing , Libs mining boom , last seen with budget emergency you mean the GLOBAL mining boom, right? When you have spent 5 months crowing about the Liberals bringing down the unemployment rate you have no place to hide when the numbers go the other way.

Not hiding at all. The rate has come down over the last 12 months and this is a bump in the road. If you look at stats like this on a graph you will see they are almost never straight lines in any direction.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 3:52pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:17pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 9:06am: Its time wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:49am: Missing , Libs mining boom , last seen with budget emergency you mean the GLOBAL mining boom, right? When you have spent 5 months crowing about the Liberals bringing down the unemployment rate you have no place to hide when the numbers go the other way. Not hiding at all. The rate has come down over the last 12 months and this is a bump in the road. If you look at stats like this on a graph you will see they are almost never straight lines in any direction.

Bit early to be making excuses, may take a few months to tell.

Should make the Right happy.

All those new bludgers for them to denigrate and persecute...  >:( >:(

Kat wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 9:12pm:

Should make the Right happy. All those new bludgers for them to denigrate and persecute...  >:( >:(

I'm not sure there's anything "new" in these numbers at all. Unemployment figures are a statistical sample that in this case has produced a higher result. The figures for the previous couple of months were admitted by many to be unrealistic, including the ABS. What we may be seeing here is a set of numbers that are closer to the true value in accordance with the methodology. No actual rise, just a new sample.

The actual unemployment rate being about 10% is a different topic, of course.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 9:03pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:52pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:17pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 9:06am: Its time wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:49am: Missing , Libs mining boom , last seen with budget emergency you mean the GLOBAL mining boom, right? When you have spent 5 months crowing about the Liberals bringing down the unemployment rate you have no place to hide when the numbers go the other way. Not hiding at all. The rate has come down over the last 12 months and this is a bump in the road. If you look at stats like this on a graph you will see they are almost never straight lines in any direction. Bit early to be making excuses, may take a few months to tell.

Which is exactly what I said.

Different story when the numbers appear to go down.... then it's choruses of angels from the rooftops trumpeting the virtues and value of a Right wing government that so far has failed in every meaningful way, and most particularly in genuine job retention.

Now if the numbers appear to go up under a Left government.... all of Hell is about to rise.....

No wonder nobody wants this government, but has no genuine expectations from their current Opposition...

Poor Fellows.. My Voters....

mariacostel wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 3:52pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:17pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 9:06am: Its time wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:49am: Missing , Libs mining boom , last seen with budget emergency you mean the GLOBAL mining boom, right? When you have spent 5 months crowing about the Liberals bringing down the unemployment rate you have no place to hide when the numbers go the other way. Not hiding at all. The rate has come down over the last 12 months and this is a bump in the road. If you look at stats like this on a graph you will see they are almost never straight lines in any direction.

You are quite unbelievable... EVERY poll in the last twelve months bar one has shown either  a rise in unemployment or 'steady' unemployment - this despite almost daily stories of layoffs indicating that the whole thing is one big lie... ..yet to you one poll that shows an upward movement after one that showed a slight decline is the rogue one...

Amazing.. simply amazing....

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 10:59am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:52pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:17pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 9:06am: Its time wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:49am: Missing , Libs mining boom , last seen with budget emergency you mean the GLOBAL mining boom, right? When you have spent 5 months crowing about the Liberals bringing down the unemployment rate you have no place to hide when the numbers go the other way. Not hiding at all. The rate has come down over the last 12 months and this is a bump in the road. If you look at stats like this on a graph you will see they are almost never straight lines in any direction. You are quite unbelievable... EVERY poll in the last twelve months bar one has shown either  a rise in unemployment or 'steady' unemployment - this despite almost daily stories of layoffs indicating that the whole thing is one big lie... ..yet to you one poll that shows an upward movement after one that showed a slight decline is the rogue one... Amazing.. simply amazing....

I think the ABS would choose to disagree with you since the unemployment rate has DROPPED from 6.4% down to 5.8% last year. And to further underline the idiocy of your post, I have not derided or rejected the current figure. It seems more than reasonable.

Now why dont you go back to writing your garbage fiction 'books'. Do you know how to write dialogue yet?

To be honest -> if only one poll showing upwards - it can be considered a "rogue" or abnormal...unless it is a start of a trend.

If it isn't, I wonder what jobs have the libs actually help to make it happen.  Mining?  No.  Renewable energy? Definitely not.  Jobs for mates?  Yes.  Guess that answers something.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:37am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 9:03pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:52pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:17pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 9:06am: Its time wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:49am: Missing , Libs mining boom , last seen with budget emergency you mean the GLOBAL mining boom, right? When you have spent 5 months crowing about the Liberals bringing down the unemployment rate you have no place to hide when the numbers go the other way. Not hiding at all. The rate has come down over the last 12 months and this is a bump in the road. If you look at stats like this on a graph you will see they are almost never straight lines in any direction. Bit early to be making excuses, may take a few months to tell. Which is exactly what I said.

Not when the numbers move in a way you like. When that happens, you can't wait to get on your soapbox by creating a thread and crowing loudly about the "libs". You've done it just about every time the unemployment rate has moved down. But when the numbers move against your wishes, it's wait and see, wait and see, or you just ignore the thread totally and say nothing.

Why the inconsistency?

mariacostel wrote on Feb 19^th, 2016 at 3:52pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:17pm: When you have spent 5 months crowing about the Liberals bringing down the unemployment rate you have no place to hide when the numbers go the other way. Not hiding at all.

Maybe you want to have a word to your "longy" personality about hiding when unemployment rises.

Who remembers this?


Its time wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 12:09pm:

http://m.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/unemployment-rate-jobs-both-record-surprise-jumps-20150806-gistc0.html Is unemployment still trending down Longy ?

Its time wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 12:43pm:

Longy ?

Its time wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 7:53pm:

Where is Longys always valued opinion , its remarkable how being busy coincides with Liberals epic failures.

Its time wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 8:37pm:

Longy you need to explain to us how the Libs could announce a 20k stimulus package in May budget and yet the unemployment numbers are trending UP UP UP?

Its time wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 8:40pm:

How is it the Libs have doubled the budget deficit and added 100 billlllllion dollars to national debt  and yet unemployment is RISING longy ?

Its time wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 9:53pm:

Longy already checked out your profile that shows when you were last online , why aren't you giving your valuable insight on this thread ? Do you only play the battles you can win ? How do you expect to grow as a person from your blatant bias ?

Its time wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 2:01pm:

Longy we need you to explain to us how an increase in unemployment is trending down , doesn't matter how many times I put the numbers in to calculator I just can't work out how this can be.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 7:54pm:

Has longie put in an appearance yet?  I can't be bothered trawling through pages to see... Football time - Manly V Rabbitohs...

Its time wrote on Aug 8^th, 2015 at 3:22pm:

Longy we need help with the math , we need you to tell us how 6.3 is less than 6.0.

John Smith wrote on Aug 8^th, 2015 at 6:45pm:

longies back ... I can't wait to see what he says about this 'trend' !  ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Aug 8^th, 2015 at 8:22pm:

bump for longie

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 9^th, 2015 at 2:24am:

Paging Longie.... Longie.. you are required at the front desk.... Longie... Paging Longie.....

Its time wrote on Aug 9^th, 2015 at 9:57am:

Anybody know when Longy will be in to explain how 6.3 is lower 6.0 ?

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 6:11pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:52pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:17pm: When you have spent 5 months crowing about the Liberals bringing down the unemployment rate you have no place to hide when the numbers go the other way. Not hiding at all. Maybe you want to have a word to your "longy" personality about hiding when unemployment rises. Who remembers this? Its time wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 12:09pm: http://m.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/unemployment-rate-jobs-both-record-surprise-jumps-20150806-gistc0.html Is unemployment still trending down Longy ? Its time wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 12:43pm: Longy ? Its time wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 7:53pm: Where is Longys always valued opinion , its remarkable how being busy coincides with Liberals epic failures. Its time wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 8:37pm: Longy you need to explain to us how the Libs could announce a 20k stimulus package in May budget and yet the unemployment numbers are trending UP UP UP? Its time wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 8:40pm: How is it the Libs have doubled the budget deficit and added 100 billlllllion dollars to national debt  and yet unemployment is RISING longy ? Its time wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 9:53pm: Longy already checked out your profile that shows when you were last online , why aren't you giving your valuable insight on this thread ? Do you only play the battles you can win ? How do you expect to grow as a person from your blatant bias ? Its time wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:01pm: Longy we need you to explain to us how an increase in unemployment is trending down , doesn't matter how many times I put the numbers in to calculator I just can't work out how this can be. Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 7:54pm: Has longie put in an appearance yet?  I can't be bothered trawling through pages to see... Football time - Manly V Rabbitohs... Its time wrote on Aug 8th, 2015 at 3:22pm: Longy we need help with the math , we need you to tell us how 6.3 is less than 6.0. John Smith wrote on Aug 8th, 2015 at 6:45pm: longies back ... I can't wait to see what he says about this 'trend' !  ;D ;D ;D John Smith wrote on Aug 8th, 2015 at 8:22pm: bump for longie Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 9th, 2015 at 2:24am: Paging Longie.... Longie.. you are required at the front desk.... Longie... Paging Longie..... Its time wrote on Aug 9th, 2015 at 9:57am: Anybody know when Longy will be in to explain how 6.3 is lower 6.0 ?

Still waiting Longy, for an answer, and my 550 bucks .

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 6:06pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 9:37am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 9:03pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:52pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:17pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 9:06am: Its time wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:49am: Missing , Libs mining boom , last seen with budget emergency you mean the GLOBAL mining boom, right? When you have spent 5 months crowing about the Liberals bringing down the unemployment rate you have no place to hide when the numbers go the other way. Not hiding at all. The rate has come down over the last 12 months and this is a bump in the road. If you look at stats like this on a graph you will see they are almost never straight lines in any direction. Bit early to be making excuses, may take a few months to tell. Which is exactly what I said. Not when the numbers move in a way you like. When that happens, you can't wait to get on your soapbox by creating a thread and crowing loudly about the "libs". You've done it just about every time the unemployment rate has moved down. But when the numbers move against your wishes, it's wait and see, wait and see, or you just ignore the thread totally and say nothing. Why the inconsistency?

That was Longy, Bam. He was a mathematician. He would have done a PhD, but the professors were all ID IOTS.

He became a children's book author instead.

Melanias purse wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 6:34pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 6:06pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 9:37am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 9:03pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:52pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:17pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 9:06am: Its time wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:49am: Missing , Libs mining boom , last seen with budget emergency you mean the GLOBAL mining boom, right? When you have spent 5 months crowing about the Liberals bringing down the unemployment rate you have no place to hide when the numbers go the other way. Not hiding at all. The rate has come down over the last 12 months and this is a bump in the road. If you look at stats like this on a graph you will see they are almost never straight lines in any direction. Bit early to be making excuses, may take a few months to tell. Which is exactly what I said. Not when the numbers move in a way you like. When that happens, you can't wait to get on your soapbox by creating a thread and crowing loudly about the "libs". You've done it just about every time the unemployment rate has moved down. But when the numbers move against your wishes, it's wait and see, wait and see, or you just ignore the thread totally and say nothing. Why the inconsistency? That was Longy, Bam. He was a mathematician. He would have done a PhD, but the professors were all ID IOTS. He became a children's book author instead.

He sure ran away when asked to do another writing challenge  ;)

Bam wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 6:06pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 9:37am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 9:03pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:52pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:17pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 9:06am: Its time wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:49am: Missing , Libs mining boom , last seen with budget emergency you mean the GLOBAL mining boom, right? When you have spent 5 months crowing about the Liberals bringing down the unemployment rate you have no place to hide when the numbers go the other way. Not hiding at all. The rate has come down over the last 12 months and this is a bump in the road. If you look at stats like this on a graph you will see they are almost never straight lines in any direction. Bit early to be making excuses, may take a few months to tell. Which is exactly what I said. Not when the numbers move in a way you like. When that happens, you can't wait to get on your soapbox by creating a thread and crowing loudly about the "libs". You've done it just about every time the unemployment rate has moved down. But when the numbers move against your wishes, it's wait and see, wait and see, or you just ignore the thread totally and say nothing. Why the inconsistency?

I';m just copying your style. You are of course the person who claimed the 1963 Faceless Men incident' was unproven'. Your credibility has long since been shredded. Or have you finally worked out that it is a part of history that is even taught in uni political courses?

You wont respond of course. You never do to posts that embarrass you so completely.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 6:06pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 9:37am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 9:03pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:52pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 3:17pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 9:06am: Its time wrote on Feb 19th, 2016 at 8:49am: Missing , Libs mining boom , last seen with budget emergency you mean the GLOBAL mining boom, right? When you have spent 5 months crowing about the Liberals bringing down the unemployment rate you have no place to hide when the numbers go the other way. Not hiding at all. The rate has come down over the last 12 months and this is a bump in the road. If you look at stats like this on a graph you will see they are almost never straight lines in any direction. Bit early to be making excuses, may take a few months to tell. Which is exactly what I said. Not when the numbers move in a way you like. When that happens, you can't wait to get on your soapbox by creating a thread and crowing loudly about the "libs". You've done it just about every time the unemployment rate has moved down. But when the numbers move against your wishes, it's wait and see, wait and see, or you just ignore the thread totally and say nothing. Why the inconsistency? I';m just copying your style.

Liar. You're just afraid to admit that you've been caught out being foolish yet again.


mariacostel wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:

You are of course the person who claimed the 1963 Faceless Men incident' was unproven'.

Liar. It was unproven because you refused to provide proof, such as a link ... which you never did, of course, even though you were obviously copying and pasting from somewhere. And as usual for you, no link was ever provided, but instead you started spewing lies and deflections whenever you're greatly outclassed when debating facts. Which happens a lot.

This is how you concede to me. You couldn't be more obvious if you were the last living soldier marching across a field littered with the bodies of your dead, defeated comrades waving a white flag. I accept your concession. Discussion over.




mariacostel wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:

Your credibility has long since been shredded.

From you, the forum's resident liar? Hardly.


mariacostel wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:

Or have you finally worked out that it is a part of history that is even taught in uni political courses? You wont respond of course. You never do to posts that embarrass you so completely.

This demonstrates your hypocrisy. You usually go silent when you get owned on a point, which happens on average five times a day because you lie so much.

Your other tactic is deflection. This is what you often do whenever the topic of the Liberal party's links to the Calabrian Mafia is raised. Why do you never discuss how your beloved Liberal party takes money from organised crime? You will NEVER discuss this.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 6:06pm: Not when the numbers move in a way you like. When that happens, you can't wait to get on your soapbox by creating a thread and crowing loudly about the "libs". You've done it just about every time the unemployment rate has moved down. But when the numbers move against your wishes, it's wait and see, wait and see, or you just ignore the thread totally and say nothing. Why the inconsistency? I';m just copying your style. You are of course the person who claimed the 1963 Faceless Men incident' was unproven'. Your credibility has long since been shredded. Or have you finally worked out that it is a part of history that is even taught in uni political courses? You wont respond of course. You never do to posts that embarrass you so completely.

I would think that bringing up irrelevant 1963 issues as if it means something would be enough to put question marks against one's credibility ?

Dnarever wrote on Feb 20^th, 2016 at 9:45pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 7:16pm: Bam wrote on Feb 20th, 2016 at 6:06pm: Not when the numbers move in a way you like. When that happens, you can't wait to get on your soapbox by creating a thread and crowing loudly about the "libs". You've done it just about every time the unemployment rate has moved down. But when the numbers move against your wishes, it's wait and see, wait and see, or you just ignore the thread totally and say nothing. Why the inconsistency? I';m just copying your style. You are of course the person who claimed the 1963 Faceless Men incident' was unproven'. Your credibility has long since been shredded. Or have you finally worked out that it is a part of history that is even taught in uni political courses? You wont respond of course. You never do to posts that embarrass you so completely. I would think that bringing up irrelevant 1963 issues as if it means something would be enough to put question marks against one's credibility ?

It's a very obvious sign that he's waving the white flag on any discussion. It's also worth noting that this was originally his response when the Liberal Party's links to the Calabrian Mafia were raised. He has consistently refused to discuss this issue.

The '1963 Faceless Men' is no different from any other party Caucus.... the Libs have their own... and most are not elected.  The rest of that story is just journalistic hyperbole.

It is the PARTY apparatus that makes the policies... not the elected representatives, who are merely garnering the reward for party loyalty.

Long Mania is clinging here to a dead horse that s/he tried to change midstream......