The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, The Echo and The Sun. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1937. FEWER UNEMPLOYED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 269, 12 November 1937, Page 6

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, The Echo and The Sun.

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1937. FEWER UNEMPLOYED.

For the cause that iaclcs assistance, For the wrong that need• re*M(OMI| For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

The latest unemployment return shows the total number to be 23,181, as against .5(i,450 on September 25, and 37,31(1 on August 28. This is a startling reduction, but unfortunately it is not wholly due to n reduction of unemployment, but is attributable in part to the new form of return, which, as explained l»v the Minister, Mr. Armstrong, has been adopted in order that it shall be "really comparable with returns published in other countries." The new form certainly presents the tipiires in such a way as to show that the unemployment position is now much less serious than is commonly imagined, but is it us the Minister has asserted, an "absolutely correct statement"? As the Minister explained in u statement last month, the unemployment Ugures are undoubtedly inflated by the inclusion of a class [of men who are unemployable. In the latest return it is shown that there are 16,876 men on sustenance, but of these more than half, 8499, are classed as "totally unfit for employment for health or other reasons." The same number, 8499, appeared in the September return. The Minister is right in contending I that these men are not properly to be classified Lis unemployed, and that "if and when the [National Health and Superannuation Scheme is introduced" they will be provided tor under another heading. Meanwhile they remain in the lists of "unemployed." But in the new form another class of men, those "receiving full-ti/ue employment wholly or partly paid from the Employment Fund," does not appear ut all, and as these numbered 9993 in August and 11,397 in September, their exclusion makes a substantial difference to the figures. Why have they been excluded? The Minister says many of thein "are completely unaware of their inclusion in returns of unemployment," that many of them,, through their relief being supplemented, are "earning up to the basic wage." But why should these be ignored in compiling unemployment returns? Their employment may be riegular, their payment may be greater than the normal relief scale, but part of their payment comes from the Employment Fund, and without the fund's contribution they would probably not be at work. Apart from the large group \*ich the Minister has chosen to "ignore," the latest return does show reductions. There are 366 \ fewer men - "registered but not on relief," 1234 > fewer "receiving sustenance without work," i and 274 fewer on "scheme 5 relief." The total certain reduction since last month therefore exceeds 1800.