EMPLOYMENT COMPARISONS

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 106, 1 November 1933, Page 10

EMPLOYMENT COMPARISONS

(To the Editor.) Sir,—With reference to comparisons of unemployed figures made from ■ time to time' in the Press, I believe a fairer way of doing this would be to quote figures of people actually at work and those unemployed, and thus leave out non-workers, such as people who have retired and live on" their'pensions or interest of investments, or incomes from property. As far as New Zealand is concerned, figures quoted from time to time are only of men from 20 years of age and upwards. Figures in Qreat Britain include everyone of, both sexes, from the time of leaving school, so a comparison that, way would be out of order. Even if the number of males/classified as "men" be taken, a man is classed as such from .18 years of age (vide insurance payments), so that New Zealand would have an advantage that way. Can you publish the numbers of "men" in New Zealand and Great Britain under the two headings—employed and unemployed on any certain date?—l am, etc., 1 CURIOUS. ' [Inquiry of the Unemployment Board elicited the fact that such a comparison as is asked by the correspondent cannot be made in New Zealand. In England only certain industries are covered by insurance, and the number of employed refers ■to insured industries only. > Only the unemployed temporarily out of those industries are entitled to- relief under the Unemployed Insurance Act. •■■ In ifew Zealand quite a new experiment ia being tried. All males over 20 years of age in the country, provided that, they are temporarily out 'of employment, business men and farmers, as veil as labourers^ in industries, are entitled to lnake claims on the Unemployment Fund if registered, and eligible.—Ed.] »