Filled job numbers rise for first time in eight months

Economy / news

Latest Stats NZ figures show filled jobs rose by nearly 6,000 in November - the first monthly rise since March 2024

13th Jan 25, 11:32am by David Hargreaves

Source: 123rf.com

The number of filled jobs in New Zealand rose by nearly 6,000 in November, on a seasonally adjusted basis - breaking a sequence of seven consecutive monthly falls, according to the latest figures from Stats NZ.

According to Stats NZ's Monthly Employment Indicators (MEI) there are still nearly 30,000 fewer jobs now in NZ than there were a year ago. (Note that the month-on-month comparisons are seasonally adjusted figures while the annual comparisons are actual figures).

In terms of the seasonally adjusted filled jobs figures for the November 2024 month (compared with the October 2024 month), the details were:

all industries – up 0.3% (5,980 jobs) to 2.36 million filled jobs
primary industries – down 0.4% (436 jobs)
goods-producing industries – down 0.2% (836 jobs)
service industries – up 0.3% (6,230 jobs).

It's worth pointing out that this data series is normally the subject of considerable revisions subsequently - and very often the figures are subsequently revised down. However, a rise of the magnitude of 0.3%, seems unlikely to be overturned, so, it appears likely the breaking of the seven-month cycle of monthly drops seems likely to stay even after revisions.

The MEI figures come from Inland Revenue data and are therefore sourced quite differently to the quarterly unemployment figures that come from Stats NZ's Household Labour Force Survey.

According to the latest HLFS figures for the September quarter, released in early November, NZ's official unemployment rate had risen as of then to 4.8% from 4.6% as of the June quarter.

The Reserve Bank (RBNZ) is forecasting that the unemployment figures will continue to rise, peaking at 5.2% in the March quarter 2025.

But while the MEI figures are differently sourced to the HLFS figures - they often are a good indicator of the future unemployment figures.

The next HLFS unemployment figures for the December quarter are due to be released on February 5 and will be watched with keen interest.

Westpac senior economist Michael Gordon said the latest MEI figures were firmer than the "flat result" that the Westpac economists had expected "though there remains a tendency for these figures to be revised down in the months after their initial release".

The Westpac economists are still forecasting the HLFS figures to show a 0.3% decline in employment in the December quarter "that in turn would likely see the unemployment rate rise to 5% or more".

Gordon said the most notable gains in the MEI figures were seen in areas that can be broadly linked to the international tourism sector: transport, hospitality and recreational services.

"This may have reflected a gearing-up in anticipation of a better summer season than we saw in the previous year."

Stats says that in terms of the actual November MEI figures total filled jobs in the country were 2.38 million, which was down 29,895 (1.2%) on the figures for November 2023.

By industry, the largest changes in the number of filled jobs (actual figures) compared with November 2023 were in:

construction – down 5.8% (12,137 jobs)
health care and social assistance – up 2.9% (8,048 jobs)
administrative and support services – down 6.6% (6,869 jobs)
manufacturing – down 2.4% (5,823 jobs)
retail trade – down 2.4% (5,445 jobs).

By region, the largest changes in the number of filled jobs compared with November 2023 were in:

Auckland – down 1.6% (13,423 jobs)
Wellington – down 1.9% (4,921 jobs)
Waikato – down 0.7% (1,627 jobs)
Bay of Plenty – down 0.9% (1,334 jobs)
Hawke’s Bay – down 1.5% (1,268 jobs).

As has been the case, the younger age groups have continued to bear the brunt of the job reductions.

Stats NZ says by age group, the largest changes in the number of filled jobs compared with November 2023 were in:

15–19 years – down 11.2% (16,418 jobs)
25–29 years – down 4.8% (12,865 jobs)
20–24 years – down 3.5% (8,173 jobs)
35–39 years – up 2.9% (7,978 jobs)
30–34 years – down 2.1% (6,271 jobs).

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

32 Comments

by K.W. | 13th Jan 25, 11:54am 1736722478

One of the problems NZ has is that the minimum wage applies to everyone aged 16 years and older. Unlike Australia where the minimum wage only applies to those aged 21 or older. Why hire an unskilled, uneducated 16 year old who struggles to get out of bed in the morning, on the full whack minimum wage when you can hire a 30 year old recent immigrant with 15 years of experience for the same cost?

Then the Lefty socialists all scratch their heads and say that unemployment is the fault of employers for not training young people these days. No, of course they wont train young people, why would they, when the country is being flooded with cheap immigrant labour by the Lefty socialists?

Turn the low skilled immigration tap off. Reduce the minimum wage for young people. Improve the standards of literacy and numeracy in children leaving school so they are employable. Provide subsidies for youth training (its cheaper than paying JobSeeker). Then maybe employers will resurrect some training programmes.

If all else fails, give them a flight voucher for Australia. On Jetstar, not Air NZ. Taxpayers need to save money after all.

by Uncle Bulgaria | 13th Jan 25, 12:05pm 1736723146

I think many will warmly embrace the turning off of comments.

by rastus1 | 13th Jan 25, 12:12pm 1736723520

Min wage costs the employer about $40k per year (plus other employment expenses). That's a decent amount of extra revenue said youth has to bring in.

by The_Seeker | 13th Jan 25, 12:51pm 1736725907

Actually minimum wage at $23.15/hr = $48,152pa for 40/hr week, going up to $23.50/hour on 1 April ($48,880pa).

Employers' on-costs include 3% Kiwisaver contribution and ACC, so it is well over $50,000 in direct costs to bring on a new employee on the minimum wage.

by rastus1 | 13th Jan 25, 1:22pm 1736727722

Starting-out and training minimum wage will go up from $18.52 to $18.80 per hr.

by Rampart | 13th Jan 25, 1:23pm 1736727815

Don’t forgot those 10 sick days because 90% of min wage staff take their entitled 10 per year

by Chaosinflesh | 13th Jan 25, 12:37pm 1736725040

So we can return to the good ol' days when McDs, BK etc wouldn't hire anyone over 20? Might solve inflation I guess.

But I definitely agree with an actual immigration target.

Plenty of our youth are trained but unemployed - mass immigration GFC to Covid saw all my younger friends under/unemployed after Uni, as having spent years and dollars studying the employers just wanted cheap off the boat. All saw full employment happen post-lockdowns pre-immigration starting up again.

At least make Unis free (did you know we could write off the full student loan debt for 1 years accommodation supplement - or 2 months super? That'd be a ~15% boost in spending power for graduates).

by K.W. | 13th Jan 25, 1:00pm 1736726449

And that would be a very good start. McDonalds is well known for being one of the best youth employment training grounds that exist.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbernick/2024/07/23/the-best-job-tra…

Whilst most people think there is no value in learning how to flip burgers, what those kids are actually learning is -

"Chief among these general work skills are the non-vocational skills which he and most employers are looking for in employees: teamwork, customer service, time management, and budgeting:

“A young person, entering the workforce at a McDonald's for the first time, will likely experience what it means to support a team and have the team rely on you, every minute of the working day. Showing up on time, learning new stations, training fellow employees, engaging with the public (dealing with the positives and the challenges), cashing a paycheck and realizing who gets part of that work (taxes and your take home net), budgeting the net to enjoy the fruits of your hard work.”

"Former workers talk about how nobody else was willing to give them a chance, and how McDonald’s helped them to gain a foothold into the job world. Most did not stay at McDonald’s for more than few years, but used the experience to move onto other jobs, drawing on general work skills gained."

by Chaosinflesh | 13th Jan 25, 1:10pm 1736727034

Yes, that's all true (I studied McD years ago).

My issue with it is ethical - McDonalds can do all that regardless of age. The youth wage allowed McDonalds to discriminate on the basis of age - which is illegal (though we know it happens everywhere anyway) - and they sure did!

by K.W. | 13th Jan 25, 1:21pm 1736727660

Its simply a corporate incentive. I'd rather companies chose to employ 16-20 year olds instead of them spending 4 years on JobSeeker, becoming demoralised and hopeless, and starting on the path of becoming a long term, lifetime welfare beneficiary. I see it as a win-win for everyone concerned. Young people get jobs and training, McDonalds get cheaper staff, consumers get cheaper burgers. Exactly who loses in this scenario? The only person I can think of is the new immigrant who doesnt get a visa to be a McDonalds "restaurant manager". Boo hoo, I wont be getting out the tissues.

We live in a country where employers and Govt agencies are told they must discriminate based on race and gender, but you have an ethical problem with age discrimination?

by Chaosinflesh | 13th Jan 25, 1:42pm 1736728955

I have a problem with all discrimination not related to ability to do the job. Talking about one form doesn't mean I don't care about others - they just weren't relevant to the discussion.

There are plenty of other people who would lose (otherwise McD would have no staff over 19 still, and it would be proven a non-issue - but that doesn't seem to be the case?).

by K.W. | 13th Jan 25, 2:21pm 1736731292

It would only be a problem if McDonalds fired staff for no reason other than turning 21. That is, and would still be, illegal. Hiring 16 year olds would result in their employees getting a pay rise every year, and upon turning 21 they would receive the full minimum wage. No one is forcing them to quit. Although as the article I quoted stated, most choose to move on to better jobs anyway.

Its something that needs to be thought of urgently, as NZ is seeing more and more early school leavers, and less going on to vocational training or University. And for those that are concerned about such things - this disproportionately affects Maori and Pasifika children. So if you want to improve "equality of outcomes" this is a good place to start.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/sliding-education-levels-continu…

by mfd | 13th Jan 25, 2:13pm 1736730783

It's a bit of a stretch to blame lefty socialists for immigration - seems to be more or less the entire political spectrum pushing for cheap migrant labour. Certainly the current coalition are working hard to get more cheap labour through the border by removing wage caps put in by the lefty socialists.

by K.W. | 13th Jan 25, 2:40pm 1736732432

I blame Lefty socialists for the flood of unskilled immigration. They have zero standards, and seem happy to import people just for the sake of importing them and they give them all permanent residency even though they have no skills (see Ardern Govt during Covid). The Right normally has standards around requiring skills for entry, gives them temporary visas, and then sends them home when they are no longer required (see Morrison Govt in Australia during Covid)

Unskilled immigrants compete with young, unskilled New Zealanders. And its our kids that lose. It needs to be fixed. "Be Kind" needs to be replaced with "New Zealanders First".

But yes, all Governments seem happy to keep the ponzi alive by importing people. Its just a question of who, and how long they stay here. And it will continue, until voters stand up and start demanding something different.

I certainly wouldnt be complaining if we had a flood of doctors and surgeons into the country. But its Uber drivers and liqour store workers instead. While NZ kids pile up on the dole.

by JimboJones | 13th Jan 25, 2:43pm 1736732615

Hadn’t labour mainly closed off the tap until they were bullied into opening it again after Covid by the right?

by K.W. | 13th Jan 25, 3:44pm 1736736289

Absolutely not. 2019 was a record year for immigration, beaten only by the 2023 numbers. Labour promised during the 2017 election to pull back on immigration, but that turned out to be a complete lie as they doubled down on it.

You see the huge number of migrant arrivals in 2019 in the graph here https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/437205/migration-will-not-return-t…

But the even bigger joke was the Labour Immigration Minister saying New Zealand will not be throwing open its doors to the large numbers of new migrants seen in recent years, once it is ready to reopen the border.

What did they do? They threw open the door and invited even higher numbers in. Plus turned 211,000 temporary visas into permanent resident ones. I've never encountered a political party that openly lied to the country as much as the Jacinda Ardern led Govt did.

by 26@Main | 13th Jan 25, 9:04pm 1736755461

Is Erica Sandford a Lefty socialist? She campaigned for a similar policy K.W. and even claimed it as a victory for National:

National’s spokeswoman for immigration, Erica Stanford, claimed the policy change was a victory for the opposition. She campaigned for a similar policy, along with other changes to re-unite split migrant families. “It’s a decision they should have made a year ago, because these things were staring them in the face, but they got trapped in their anti-migrant sentiment and their immigration reset.”

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/126535059/nearly-165000-migrants-eligible-for-fasttracked-residency

by K.W. | 13th Jan 25, 10:14pm 1736759668

I am fully prepared to start railing against all Parties, Left and Right, if NACTNZ dont do something about the level of unskilled immigration into this country. You cannot throw your own citizens on the bonfire and expect to get a pat on the back for a job well done. She needs to read the room.

by interesting1234 | 14th Jan 25, 8:06am 1736795170

The only way they will crack down is if they reform NZ Super, otherwise hey need workers to pay tax to fund it given the premesis that is is set up on (that each generation will be larger than the last and hence able to pay the super of their predecessors). You can rally all you wish but unless this is addressed, then there's not much of a chance we'll see any meaningful change. So I guess the question is, would you support the reform if the flow on opportunity is to curb immigration?

by mfd | 14th Jan 25, 8:12am 1736795555

Not sure if you're following NACT policies, looks to me like they are steadily reopening the door to migrants of all kinds. It's lucky so many kiwis are leaving the country and keeping the net figures looking good.

by WestieAJ | 13th Jan 25, 4:01pm 1736737319

The left get new voters (at least for a couple of election cycles) The right get workers and tenants. Everybody wins

by dumbthoughts | 14th Jan 25, 7:53am 1736794382

Both sides are to blame as they worship at the altar of mass immigration, albeit for different reasons.

Lefties love it because it's the fastest, easiest way to quash any remaining vestiges of traditional "Western culture and values", promoting diversity makes them feel good as they are usually immune to the consequences that might affect the average pleb (i.e. live in areas where housing is too expensive for new immigrants, kids go to nice schools, job allows for private healthcare, you get to enjoy exotic cuisines) and they love the idea of offering the entire downtrodden population of the world a chance at a better life even if it is to the detriment of the existing population.

Righties - at least the 'Business Lobby' types - love it because it's a source of cheap, compliant labour that is more easily exploitable, and immigration juices the economic stats. If you're a McDonalds franchise owner, for example, why hire the spotty teenager who might occasionally call in sick or slack off when working hungover on a Saturday morning, when you can hire a "skilled restaurant manager" whose right to reside in NZ (for the goal of bringing in his/her family) is tied to their desperation to keep the job?

So I don't completely agree with what KW is saying about the cause as BOTH sides of the spectrum are to blame.

But no doubt it's a massive social issue when businesses are effectively able to bypass hiring and upskilling the younger generations by importing cheap adult labour. I've been relatively successful in my career and still think that my early days learning customer service working in a supermarket imparted important lessons I call on ~20 years later ... young people need those opportunities.

by sammnz | 13th Jan 25, 3:09pm 1736734188

Quite literally the issue

by ChrisOfNoFame | 14th Jan 25, 2:03pm 1736816633

"Why hire an unskilled, uneducated 16 year old who struggles to get out of bed in the morning, on the full whack minimum wage when you can hire a 30 year old recent immigrant with 15 years of experience for the same cost? "

Spoken like a true capitalist.

How will it end K.W.?

by ChrisOfNoFame | 14th Jan 25, 2:18pm 1736817526

"Then the [government] all scratch their heads and say that unemployment is the fault of employers for not training young people these days. No, of course they wont train young people, why would they, when the country is being flooded with cheap immigrant labour by [all governments]?"

Take out the political b.s. and it reads just a tad different, doesn't it K.W.?

But tell me K.W., does government - i.e the voters - have a point?

Why should governments - worldwide - invest taxpayer money, investing huge sums - and they are huge! - in training people so the CAPITALISTS get that investment for free ... and pocket the profits?

Isn't this yet another case of privatising the profits while socialising the costs?

by MikeM | 13th Jan 25, 12:34pm 1736724874

Can't help but wonder how many construction firms are carrying staff hoping the recent drop in interest rates are going kick start building activity. If that doesn't come to fruition I think we'll see another round of lay offs.

by Rampart | 13th Jan 25, 2:53pm 1736733229

Construction firms have offloaded a tonne of staff. It’s hard to keep construction workers busy. Massive layoffs in civil at the moment. Civil is the canary in the coal mine in regards to construction. They feel it first. More construction layoffs impending with limited demand continuing into 2025 and beyond.

by K.W. | 13th Jan 25, 3:51pm 1736736697

New Zealand's infrastructure pipeline currently sits about the same size as Tasmania's.

https://infrastructurepipeline.org/charts/location-sector

by mfd | 14th Jan 25, 9:45am 1736801119

How would it have looked if NACT hadn't thrown Labour's toys out of the pram when they got in?

by ChrisOfNoFame | 14th Jan 25, 2:20pm 1736817630

The irony is not lost on the wise. Well said.

by stefanblaise | 13th Jan 25, 6:26pm 1736745970

The long Covid of employee bad attitude put employers off hiring for quite a while there. Some employees like to paint SMB owners with C-Suite paint, as justification for their lack of productivity. Hopefully we're coming back to a healthier balance.

by Hamish | 14th Jan 25, 8:37am 1736797070

The same exemplary employers who were all over the wage subsidy?