NZ Politics

A recession is two consecutive periods of negative growth. So usually a "technical recession" means "we meet the criteria for a recession but we're not experiencing the bad effects you'd expect (yet)"

The difference is the duration; and I would guess its done due to the vagaries of measurement as much as anything because its common for the initial numbers to end up being revised later. So 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth is a technical recession, and beyond that you're in a real recession.

But the cynic in me will always suggest that while economists sometimes seem to think what they're doing is a hard science, a lot of it seems to be more about the feels and what is expedient to their political view point.

Then on top of that, over the years i've read various arguments that GDP is kinda a piss poor measure of the economy anyway, and there's more holistic ways of measuring how things are going. This article sums up a bunch of the opinions about it, of whose Craig Renney's is the one I probably put more stock in - along with those suggesting using the Sahm Rule given it looks at employment which is probably a better measure for how actual people are getting along.

https://www.interest.co.nz/economy/124432/we-asked-twenty-economists-how-they-would-define-recession-new-zealand

‘Jobseeker’ rolled up all the old benefits into one, so there are people with disabilities who can’t work at all counted in those figures.

Yeah this is the benefit confusion I alluded to, and I was wondering if this was the case. I think things like what I think was called the Sickness Benefit is now part of the Jobseeker support benefit, despite having no requirement to look for work.

The underutilisation rate is arguably a better measure, as it includes unemployed but also people who want more work but can’t find it.

Digging into this, the unemployment rate went from 3.4% to 4.3% between March 2023 and March 2024.

The underutilisation rate went from 9.1% to 11.2% in the same time period.

I haven't managed to find data from before 2010 for underutilisation so it's hard to see the historically normal level.

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.