So here we have labor crowing about the 70odd thousands jobs, they created last month, yet, the actual unemployment numbers stayed the same.

Despite failing to tell us that the majority of the jobs created, were part time/casual, they also have not acknowledged that in order for the numbers of unemployed to stay the same, means that roughly the same amount of jobs created were also lost.

I guess they didn't cause that, so why mention it.

Now while I think it's great to see new jobs created, how can they crow about it when the same amount are lost.

<< So here we have labor crowing about the 70odd thousands jobs, they created last month, yet, the actual unemployment numbers stayed the same. >>

Well how about that!

If there’s one constant in Australia politics, it is this…. governments forever crowing about jobs that they have created, while on average unemployment hardly changes.

Of course it is not the government that creates these jobs directly by way of good policies; it is POPULATION GROWTH that creates them!

<< …in order for the numbers of unemployed to stay the same, means that roughly the same amount of jobs created were also lost. >>

Not at all, rehctub. With our rapidly growing population, we automatically get continuous rapid job-creation due to ever-increasing demand and supply. But we are staying still in terms of the unemployment rate, average incomes and standard of living.

Staying still in the short term that is, but going steadily backwards in the longer term.

Ok Ludwig, so are you saying that our population grew by some 70,000 last month and, the vast majority of them found jobs.

This 70 000 jobs looks like a statistical error, that Juliar in true form is only to happy to jump on and broadcast before checking.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/pms-jobs-record-that-never-was-20130314-2g3iz.html

Rechtub, as SM points out, and the article he refers us to explains very well, the 71 500 is probably far and away over the real figure.

The real figure is probably very close to the monthly average of late… and this figure no doubt has much more to do with population growth than it does with any other factor.