job losses

yeah, sorry, more cutting and pasting happening tonight as well. i can't help it, i keep finding interesting stuff (well, interesting to me anyway).

unemployment is in the news today, with a larger than expected rise (although hon paula bennett, as usual, is "not surprised" - wonder what percentage jump it would take to actually surprise her into doing something concrete?). anyway, i was just looking through the CTU july economic bulletin, and found this on unemployment:

There were 50,885 people on unemployment benefits at the end of June 2009, which is 33,000 more people than there were in June 2008. Since this time last year there are also 8000 more people receiving the DBP, nearly 2000 more people receiving the invalids’ benefits, and over 8000 more people receive the sickness benefit. All rises can be partly attributed to the increase in unemployment. 72 percent of beneficiaries were male, which is a considerable increase from the 65.5 percent recorded back in June 2004. If broken down by age groups, 32.8 percent were in 18-24 category, 32.8 in the 25-39 category, and 34.3 percent were in the 40-64 age group. (emphasis added)

wow. with all the bashing of solo-mums in the public arena, i found the 72% figure to be quite a surprise. on the other hand, it seems that women have been harder hit in the last three months:

“Because the Government has no job protection or creation plans for areas of the economy where women work, 15,000 women lost their jobs during the three months to June.

"Women represent 62.5% of those who lost jobs in the last quarter.

the saddest thing about the whole situation is the lack of a consistent and comprehensive plan to create jobs. which may or may not be deliberate. after all, bargaining power shifts significantly towards employers in times of high unemployment.