It's not just the public sector feeling the pain - and there is more to come across the country, economists say.

Surely all these people losing decent paying jobs will have no impact on the economy right? Definitely not a recession right?

  • @BalpeenHammerOP
    2•27 days ago

    The article says “will be unemployed” meaning they are going to get fired or laid off or whatever the term they are using these days.

    Sounds like they expect it to peak at about 4.8% if my maths is right? Historically, that’s still pretty low.

    I don’t know. Usually mass layoffs have carry over to the rest of the economy. All the businesses serving those government employees are probably also going to downsize somewhat. Some may even go out of business who knows.

    I get lost with the new benefits. Are the 187k people on Jobseeker not all considered “unemployed”?

    Most likely not everybody who is unemployed is getting a benefit so the number unemployed should be higher than those seeking jobseeker benefits.

    • @DaveMA
      2•27 days ago

      I don’t know. Usually mass layoffs have carry over to the rest of the economy. All the businesses serving those government employees are probably also going to downsize somewhat. Some may even go out of business who knows.

      But if these are in addition to the 26k, then the 26k wouldn’t be the peak?

      Most likely not everybody who is unemployed is getting a benefit so the number unemployed should be higher than those seeking jobseeker benefits.

      The article says in March 134k people are unemployed and 187k people are on the Jobseeker benefit.

      Note that “unemployed” isn’t everyone who doesn’t have a job, you have to be looking for work to be considered. So for example, you generally don’t count a stay-at-home Dad whose partner works to support the family.

      • @TagMeInSkipIGotThis
        2•27 days ago

        Yeah if 26k are dropped from the public service then there will definitely be businesses that supply the public sector that will also downsize as a result. Then there’s the indirect impact - particularly in Wellington - of fewer public services spending money with local businesses that will then also cause a contraction in their profits.

        • @DaveMA
          1•27 days ago

          But the article doesn’t say 26k public service workers, it says 26k people total. So the 26k forecast must surely include flow on impacts of the 4k+ public service jobs lost?

          • @TagMeInSkipIGotThis
            2•27 days ago

            Oh right, sorry I didn’t catch that part.

            I guess its hard to know - because 26k probably includes people made redundant as part of the general downturn triggered by the reserve bank.