How to cut the dole numbers
No Right Turn highlights a new way to cut the numbers on the dole. Refuse to let people apply for it. And then have the Government declare the drop in numbers as a victory.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Sounds good to me. the usual way is to let them go onth the sickness benefit, DPB or ACC. In fact its hard to find the numbers on full time ACC so they can be added into the myriad on the other benefits.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Do not forget the invalids benefit , my brother and me are on it and my junkie mates are on it as well , don’t tell the pigs ? mums the word .
August 21st, 2007 at 8:08 pm
And in the Herald Article which links from NRT’s post:
“but is advertising in Rotorua newspapers to find other teenagers to join a class action against Work and Income’s treatment of young jobseekers”
marvellous, i was just thinking to myself we need to give some lawyers a crapload of money via the legal aid system for doing nothing…
I would like to here the other side of the story…
Back in my glory days as a WINZ drone, inflicting stand downs for 18-19 year olds who had lost there job for many reasons, most of which could be classified as “Couldnt Be Arsed” was not an uncommon part of the job.
August 21st, 2007 at 8:13 pm
With all due respect in my youthful days Neil there was not a million New Zealanders on anti depressants and the word gay meant happy .
August 21st, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Buxton,
dates for context?
1999 I finished, shortly before there was an election which drove millions of people onto anti-depressants
August 21st, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Yes neil I can relate and it is sad that Labour have destroyed our once proud nation .
August 21st, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Reminds me that many years ago a Chinese diplomat was told that there were many in New Zealand that were unemployed. The diplomat was somewhat taken back and asked that with only a tiny population how was it possible that all the work in the country had been done. I ask the same thing to myself everyday.
August 21st, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Don’t forget – if you are on the dole and work one hour a week, you are no longer counted as unemployed even though you still get the dole.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Brian – of those who actually work part-time – how many work one hour per week?
Just about 0.
While the actions of WINZ in Rotorua are inappropriate – what is more inappropriate is that we have an opposition in NZ in denial about the government’s achievement in driving up workforce participation – in all indicators, race, age, sex, and location.
Getting people into jobs is one step away from poverty.
Then the other step is to make these jobs for the former unemployed pay a livable wage. While we are not there yet (I mean how many of the posters on here get paid close to $11.25 I wonder), the wage which employers cannot pay below is $11.25 – soon to be $12, and the youth wage is to be abolished (save for 200 hours). Still room for improvement.
Whole industries run a majority of their staff on youth wages. People over 18 wanting to a get a job in certain industries formerly could not, because they were too expensive.
- I beg to differ about minimum wages – you find me an employer who can convincingly argue to my face that their employees are worth less than the minimum wage, and I’ll take them on.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Unemployment rate when national took office 8% and was 7.9% when they left office after 9 years
[DPF: Selma lies again. In Dec 1990 it was 8.8% and was 6.3% in Dec 1999. This makes Selma's 19th lie this month]
August 21st, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Policy Parrot
6 Years ago I was on minimum wage per hour. I have tripled it
Little technique called hard work.
There is a point to paying 18 years olds bugger all, there will be exceptions, but the mojority will stop working as soon as you turn your back.
Giving them lots more money just because will not make them more productive.
Paying them less with a bonus scheme for actually applying themselves would be a lot fairer and would actually achieve more.
And thanks Selma, that really clears things up.
1 question though, why are there more people who are sick or invalids collecting benefits?
Is tyhere something the current Govt is doing that has adversely affected beneficaries health? Have the UN been informed?
August 21st, 2007 at 9:24 pm
If you want a pay rise just drop another sprog. Or head down to winz and say your dog needs an operation and your children are very upset that you can’t afford it.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:27 pm
We forget how horrible unemployment was, especially for a shy young person.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:33 pm
No one resents helping out the genuine poeple while they’re looking for a job, just the ones that abuse the system or pop babies and then go to the pub while their latest bonk beats them up.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:39 pm
This whole post is about how difficult it has actually become to “abuse the system”.
In many cases, that is unfortunate as there are genuinely needy people who could do with the money and are out of work for genuine reason.
The people who abuse the system are a small minority, and there is greater good in helping those in the first group, than denying help because of the actions of a few miscreants – collective punishment?
I thought righties didn’t believe in collectivism?
August 21st, 2007 at 9:41 pm
what is even worse about this is that WINZ did not even give these kids an opportunity to register as job seekers – which you can do even if you are not on a benefit – which would have given them access to training opportunities provided by WINZ.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:33 pm
I suppose their parents could support them till they get a job like the bloody rest of us have to. The abusers of the welfare system are large minority to put it mildy. I admit there is a problem that the people who know their way round the system best are the habitual abusers of the system and milk it like a cash cow.
Thee are amny many ways and many agencies by which “geneuinely needy” can get help. We just have such a nanny state dependent attitude in this country
August 21st, 2007 at 10:43 pm
“The people who abuse the system are a small minority”
Many posters here believe that this is not such a small minority.
Flip it around a bit and you’ve got a system that abuses people. How?
Well our socialist leaders need to have some financial leverage over at least a majority of the voting population to better ensure their continued grip on power.
Think about how many NZ’ers depend on the state for some of their income – even if it is their own earnings taxed and returned via WFF-type schemes. 1 million? 2 million? Not sure but it is certainly significantly higher now than it was in 1999. Trying to get this information from Stats NZ is a lost cause. I wonder why…
There too many of us are pawns in madam megalomaniac’s power play and we need to break the cycle.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:08 pm
I’m still blown away by thie whole “Working for Families” bullshit. More money for doing nothing, what incentive is there to strive for excellence when if you work hard enough and get a pay rise for working harder, the government cuts your benefits because you worked too hard. Meanwhile, Mr and Mrs Mediocre just plod along, fat dumb and happy because the government is handing out more dollars! So, are they going to get off their asses or just vote Labour again!
Meanwhile, as these non productive status quo merchants just get more money and spend it, the Reserve Bank wonder why they cannot control inflation! Might be because of all the extra money in the economy you think?
So, the economy isn’t growing, because there is no incentive to work harder, more money in the economy causing inflation, what happens to reduce inflationary pressure, mortgage rates go up, and those of us paying mortgages, who have managed to earn enough to pay a mortgage and who don;t qualify for any sort of government assistance are paying for the votes the Labour Party is trying to buy from the WOrking for Families recipients. All it costs them is their self respect!
August 21st, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Buxton and Neil, I think youll find if it wasnt for national in the 80′s and 90′s there would be jobs for most of these (few) unemloyed people.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:46 pm
You know, I was actually hoping that people would notice the post immediately after that one, about a scary feature of the new Immigration Bill, rather than a run of the mill complaint about WINZ being wankers…
[DPF: I did notice it!]
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:49 am
Unemployment rate when national took office 8% and was 7.9% when they left office after 9 years.
Selma, how about you get off your lazy ass and get a job and stop being a dole bludger? I noted that you make a lot of nonsense comments around here at DPF just to get noticed. Get a fuckn job and stop being taxpayer thief.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:29 am
Don’t forget about the thousands on DOSD groups, who are basically baby sitters to 16 to 20 yr. olds ., this keeps these figure from showing.
Atleast they are required to get up in the morning which in itself
must be a good thing.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:16 am
You could perhaps add people in some of those training courses eg Albert Einstien School of Tourism… (or job skills lite)…, institutions exsisting for the proprietors?
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:17 am
At the risk of Phil U misinterpreting my post and actual believing I follow Redbaiter
in the run up to the last election a national party mp (I cant remember who, might have been John Key as I think most the questioning was based around finance) said on Radio Live
‘basically what it Working for Families means is that a person might go to there childs soccer game rather than work a few extra hours’
I totally agreed with him……..I hope thats exactly what WFF will do
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:19 am
Railways and ministry of works used to soak up the unemployed.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:20 am
and before Adolf jumps in to fix my grammar
1/ withdraw the extra word “it”
2/ replace “there” with “their”
3/ replace “childs” with “child’s”
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:49 am
“Railways and ministry of works used to soak up the unemployed.”
The public service has grown like topsy under Labour. Apparently it’s easier to fabricate state sector jobs than it is to explain why policies have not created sufficient economic growth to increase real, productive employment.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:56 am
Selma,
Are you advocting for a Labour government that refuses people’s entitlement’s to welfare just to have a lower number than National?
It sure seems like it.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:22 am
You know, I was actually hoping that people would notice the post immediately after that one, about a scary feature of the new Immigration Bill, rather than a run of the mill complaint about WINZ being wankers…
You are a good writer producing readable posts, but are biased and have shut off your comments section allowing no factual corrections or counter opinions. Have got no time to read crap that is presented as unquestionable truth, no matter how well it is written.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:24 am
PS – reckon your blog title is ideal for a NASCAR fansite.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:39 am
Wow – my security code word for this post was FUKA.
“Brian – of those who actually work part-time – how many work one hour per week?
Just about 0.”
The point is that a person is off the official unemployment list if they work AS LITTLE AS one hour per week. Whether they work one or ten, they still get the dole but are not counted as unemployed, even though their income is almost totally derived from a benefit.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 am
That is the point isn’t it. And our MSM jabbers on about record low unemployment when in really we’re likely to have record benefit dependency.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
<p>”[DPF: Selma lies again. In Dec 1990 it was 8.8% and was 6.3% in Dec 1999. This makes Selma’s 19th lie this month]“</p>
<p>In 1990 the unemployment rate averaged 7.8% – in 1999 the figure was 6.8% – since then labour has brought it down to 3.6% (the lowest it’s been since labour was last in power). National believes in a “natural rate of unemployment” – meaning that they believe it’s good to have unemployment figure of above 5% in order to minimalise inflation. That way the wealthy and middle class benefit most from. Conversely labour believes in “full employment”, even though it may cause a little more inflation, because they believe that everyone who wants to work should have the opportunity to do so.</p>
[DPF: Despite PJ's best efforts Selma is still wrong. And PJ also make himself look a fool in terms of natural rate of unemployment as Labour have not (yet) changed monetary polling significantly. In fact since 1999 unemployment has been declining apart from the Asian crisis. Labour have just continued what was a well estblished trend.]
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Hey – wait a minute – if you tell 18-19 year olds in Rotorua that they can’t go on the Dole – then they don’t go on the dole!.
Well what if – you told everyone else in Rotorua they couldn’t go on the dole. or the DBP. or the sickness. or on anything else. What if you told that to everyone else in the country? And what if you made that the law??
Let’s think. Wow. People would have to get a job. or go to Aussie.
sounds like a policy to me!
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:04 pm
” In fact since 1999 unemployment has been declining apart from the Asian crisis.”
I thought the Asian crisis occured in 1998?
“PJ also make himself look a fool in terms of natural rate of unemployment as Labour have not (yet) changed monetary polling significantly.”
Can you please explain what you mean by “monetary polling” DPF?
[DPF: Sorry I mean from 1991 to 2007 unemployment has been declining except for a couple of years in 97/98 around teh time of the Asian crisis. And it was dropping fast in 1999 when Nats left office.
monetary polling means monetary policy. Surely you are not claiming unemployment reduces from 6% to 3% because the target ban moved from "0% to 3%" to "1% to 3%."]
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:45 pm
“Surely you are not claiming unemployment reduces from 6% to 3% because the target ban moved from “0% to 3%” to “1% to 3%”
Not at all – But do think that the focus of the government has shifted from punishing the unemployed (National) to getting them into jobs (i.e. task force green). There is plenty of work done in the economic literature which shows that governments who spend significant resources on finding work for the unemployed, can significantly up the employment rate and reduce the unemployment rate – Sweden is often sited as one such country.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:46 pm
sorry about the typos.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:40 pm
WFF does do good. I know two solo mothers with primary school age children (1 with 3 children and 1 with 1 child) who are now working 20 hours a week each. Both were on the DPB because of marital/relationship breakdowns.
Neither of them are on the DPB any more. Yes, they receive WFF but as their hours and income increase the WFF will reduce. They both are working towards increasing their hours and their income will rise as they are both competent at their jobs. I know this as I am their employer.
If it were not for WFF they would still be on the DPB simply because there was no way off it which wouldn’t have an adverse financial impact on them, leaving them and their children worse off.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:38 am
I unsubscribed my NoRightTurn feed this morning. I think I/S has jumped the shark. I mean saying that National is acting in Bad Faith over the Electoral Finance Bill and no right of reply…