Youth Unemployment

November 8th, 2009 at 2:34 pm by David Farrar

Labour MP Jacinda Ardern blogs her concern that the rate for under 20s has reached 25%. I share her concern.

I wonder if anyone else thinks that in hindsight maybe abolishing rates wasn’t the smartest move?

I know I only got some of my teenage employment because of youth rates. I started at $1.99 an hour.

The combination of ending youth rates and increasing the minimum wage to $12.50, has meant for some employers the cost of hiring teenagers has doubled.

Now when the economy was growing strongly, one could do these things without a big impact on youth employment. But this is the problem with so much of what Labour did – it was assumed businesses would always have money to burn.

The motivation behind increasing the minimum wage and abolishing youth rates was good. But as with most economic moves, there are almost always downsides to any initiative, and we are now seeing part of that.

The more expensive you force up the cost of labour, the less people in employment. Now that is not saying there should be no minimum wage, but a recognition that the more you increase it, the bigger the impact on jobs.

youthemploy

This is a graph of employment of both teenagers and 20 to 24 year olds. It is not seasonally adjusted so every December you see an increase due to holidays.

There has been a dramatic decrease in the number of jobs for under 20s, but relatively little for 20 to 24 year olds. From Sep 07 to Sep 09 the number of teenagers in employment fell 32,800 while for those aged 20 – 24, the fall was just 4,100.

Hence I think the abolishment of youth wages is a major factor. Otherwise you would expect the two age groups to be somewhat more aligned.

Incidentally the teenage unemployment rate has always been traditionally high. Only once in the HLFS history, has it been under 10% – in September 1987.

Tags: , ,

37 Responses to “Youth Unemployment”

  1. James (1,338 comments) says:

    A minimum wage law is really a “make the poor and most desperate appear even more un economic to employ”law.If an employee is not able to cover the cost of their wages plus create new wealth over and above that he’s a liability to the cpmpany and should not be there.And then theres the moral issue….by what right does anyone have to force people to pay a wage over and above what they may have freely bargined with a potential employee? What happened to the rights to liberty and property?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..The more expensive you force up the cost of labour, the less people in employment..”

    so..you think the ‘closing the wage gap with australia’ rhetoric from key/english/national..is just that..?..’rhetoric’..?

    and ..

    bring back youth rates of pay..!..eh..?

    here’s an idea..!

    open up the conservation estate to ‘surgical-mining’..

    bring back youth-rates of pay..($5 per hr..?..too much/high..?..)

    and send the pimply-faced bastards ‘down the mines’..eh..?

    the symbolism would be ‘brilliant’..!

    eh..?

    ‘big gezza’ and ‘paula’..ordering surly teenagers to go and ‘blacken their hands’..

    the trolls would love that idea..

    ..eh..?

    (maybe you could extend it to solo-mothers..?

    ‘down the mines..!..or yr benefit will be cancelled..!’

    national..’lest we forget’..

    eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. nickb (3,659 comments) says:

    I totally agree philu, its the greedy bosses!

    Lets raise the minimum wage to $25, and watch unemployment fall, job advertisements skyrocket, and the economy take off. The gap with Australia would be closed overnight!

    How simple! Why have none of our idiot right wing politicians and economists advocated this before??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. backster (2,079 comments) says:

    Part of the problem is that there are too many benefits available so kids leaving school don’t bother searching for work or even taking up advertised jobs. For females they only need to get pregnant and increasing numbers of them are, as an alternative to work. Nonetheless your point about Youth Wages is well made.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. gopolks (102 comments) says:

    Youth unemployment is at 25%, that is terrible.

    Of course any employer will hire someone older now that youth rates are gone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    How about looking at the problem from the other angle. What skills can we give 15-19 year olds so that they can give extra financial value to employers, so that they will want to pay them a betetr wage.

    Obviously presentation, literacy, maths and computer skills count but I would be keen for the govt to look at ways of increasing trade-training and apprenticeships, mentoring etc….

    To do this of course, govt also needs to find out from business what skills it needs so that we aren’t giving useless skills.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    How about looking at the problem from the other angle. What skills can we give 15-19 year olds so that they can give extra financial value to employers, so that they will want to pay them a better wage.

    I was thinking the same thing. Skills like, let me see, a willingness to work hard would be a start. That doesn’t require top-shelf intellect and/or a drawer full of NCEA certificates. It’s simply an attitude of being prepared to work for what they are paid. Radical concept, and one diametrically opposed to being paid because it’s a right. Advancement for this latter group is into the fantasy world of the philu’s in our midst – where being paid for doing nothing is seen as a right.

    Back to youth, those who tend not to complain about how much they are paid are the ones who are happy with what they earn, or have worked hard and hunted-out employers who will pay them more for their efforts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Steve (4,499 comments) says:

    ‘down the mines..!..or yr benefit will be cancelled..!’

    We can only wish Phool

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Mr A (17 comments) says:

    “The more expensive you force up the cost of labour, the less people in employment. Now that is not saying there should be no minimum wage, but a recognition that the more you increase it, the bigger the impact on jobs.”
    This observation as to the reason that people under 20 are suffering higher unemployment is simplistic and ignores other factors. Firstly, businesses decide how many people they employ based on turnover. If wages were suddenly halved, businesses wouldn’t hire twice as many people because there wouldn’t be any extra work for them to do. On the other hand, businesses need a minimum level of staff to operate therefore demand for labour can be very inelastic when it gets down to maintaining skeleton crew.
    Other factors include investment in technology that can either compete with costs of labour, or increase productivity thereby reducing demand for labour. This would occur if wages were extremely high and probably suggests one reason for poor productivity growth, our wages are low so multinational companies invest less capital in New Zealand operations than their comparable operations overseas.
    I would suggest that the removal of youth wages has increased unemployment in this group because the increase in price for youth workers has made their alternative, older workers who have more experience, maturity, and work ethic more attractive since price considerations have been removed. I agree that removing the youth wage was a mistake but I would not agree that lower minimum wages is a credible option to reduce unemployment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Labour MP Jacinda Ardern blogs her concern that the unemployment rate for under 20s has reached 25%.”

    Jacinda is OK, tho, like Helen Klark before her, lining up to be a public tit sucker all her life.

    Get a job Jacinda, in the real world. Add to NZ’s productivity rather than dimninish it. That’s the only real way you’ll help teens get jobs.

    One of the major reason’s jobs are hard to come by is because there are too many damn parasites sucking off the ever reducing pool of real taxpayers

    New Zealand is a tiny Pacific country of around 4.4 million people. ‘All working age beneficiaries Sep 2009 = 326,811. Public service headcount at 2008 = 45,934. Over 384,000 families were recipients of the more than $2.5 billion spent on WFF tax credits for the entitlement year ended March 2008 (Treasury). Superannuitants 522,000 2009 (Treasury forecast).

    Total so far 1,278,745

    Doesn’t include state paid employees in health, education, law and order, defence and welfare.

    Where the hell does it end??

    Here maybe-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

    (With credits to Crusader Rabbit and Lindsay Mitchell)

    http://crusader-rabbit.blogspot.com/2009/11/staggering-burden.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. nickb (3,659 comments) says:

    Good post red.
    The deadweight loss of taxation is harmful enough without the extra effects off WFF, where we tax you, to administrate a tax system, to give the tax back to you that you have already paid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    I’d like to send phool down a mine.

    Then seal it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Elijah Lineberry (306 comments) says:

    A large tax cut; large spending cuts (on the Unemployment Benefit for young people for instance); large company tax cuts and abolition of the minimum wage.

    This is how the problem will be solved; it will not be solved by wishful thinking or raising minimum wages or blaming businessmen.

    http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    Maybe we should be more like the U.S. no minimum wage or better still the African countries- if we had wage rates like they do we’d be laughing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Johnboy (14,998 comments) says:

    We’ve got a really great indiginous culture similar to the sad sack African nations so another twenty years of sucking-at-the-tit socialism should see our wages match our dancing and tongue poking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Razork (375 comments) says:

    My teenage daughter goes to the local supermarket asking for a part time job (her first).
    The response, “no thanks, we can hire a married lady with experience for the same money”

    So daughter says, “thats ok, just pay me less until I’m worth more.”

    They say “we can’t”

    So she hasn’t yet got her first job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Scrap the minimum wage (or lower it) and time limit the dole to 3 months and watch the youth unemployment rate plummet.

    There’ll always be jobs which aren’t economic at the minimum wage. But if an employer and an employee are happy to work at a lower rate, what business does the government have to say: “No, you cannot work at that rate. Here, go on the dole instead”? The minimum wage effectively kills those jobs off. And most people don’t stay in those jobs for long, but they are a step on the ladder and a great learning experience.

    A country which lets young people collect the dole while jobs and opportunities go unfilled, is a breeding ground for welfare dependency and decline.

    Firstly, businesses decide how many people they employ based on turnover. If wages were suddenly halved, businesses wouldn’t hire twice as many people because there wouldn’t be any extra work for them to do.

    That’s a simplistic static model which doesn’t reflect how an economy works. A better example is a cafe which decides that it’s not economic to open on mondays as there isn’t enough business to cover the costs at $12.5/hour. At $9/hour it might be economic and everyone would benefit. The student who has time for a job monday afternoons is in luck. If the minimum wage is $12.5/hour, then they’re out of luck.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Blue Coast (165 comments) says:

    Razork

    That outcome was put forward at the time but those who know better did not listen. Thankfully they (Liarbour) have now lost the cheque book.

    Don’t get me started on the huge loss of jobs by some of our less fortunate NZ ers (IHC folks) who have lost their jobs due to Liarbour policy. Good folk but kicked in the guts by gutless Liarbour MP’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Maybe we should be more like the U.S. no minimum wage or better still the African countries- if we had wage rates like they do we’d be laughing.

    Most US states have a minimum wage. Needless to say there are other factors at play which account for the relative wealth in the US and lack of in Africa.

    Unfortunately in many ways NZ is closer to the African model than the US one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Piggy (66 comments) says:

    christ, the spin

    why don’t you extend your neat little graph there so it includes the economic downturn in the early 90′s, contrast the ratio of adult unemployment vs youth unemployment and then do the same for 2008-2009? it’s pretty much exactly the same despite kids only getting paid $4 an hour back then.

    then again, i can’t think of something that fits the definition of ‘conservative’ better than saying that we shouldn’t ever introduce policies that help people because one day in the future that is completely impossible to predict something bad might happen therefore we have to keep wages low forever

    [DPF: Oh you think an eventual recession was unlikely and hard to predict. It was in fact inevitable.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Piggy, but does the minimum wage help more than it harms?

    When you say it helps people, are you also taking into account the jobs which aren’t created or are lost and the young people (supermarket schoolgirl in example above) who are over-priced by the minimum wage and thus cannot even get a first job?

    It’s easy to spot the intended consequences, but the unintended ones are a bastard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Viking2 (11,132 comments) says:

    Well having lived and worked and employed through the last 45 years of ups and downs the problem is not caused by minimum rates but by economic policy directly controlled by Govt. Aussie has higher pay rates than us, 30+% higher and they still have the jobs.
    Attacking unemployed young people by reducing their already small payments won’t make them go to work, only turn to crime. What is needed is inspiring leadership at the top to get our businesses doing what they should be. But this lot have in 12 months succeeded in doing nothing of note.
    We still have a moribound RMA(Smith), we still have too high company and personal Tax rates(English). We still have moribound R&D(English). We still have WFF. We still have 500 quango’s. We still have inefficient labour laws.
    And you wonder where all the work has gone. Walk down any street in any industrial area in this country and look at all the empty buildings. Hundreds of them. Well not so long ago they were full.

    Truck sales are down 55% on what they were. Now we can’t put that all down to rails efficiency.

    My company has 5 new ideas to bring to market. All conceived here and all capable of being made here and exported. All capable of employing people and we don’t expect to do that for nothing. Because they are new and Patented or at the very least protect able are able to be sold all round the world. either directly or by license.

    My question is Why would we bother making them here?
    Until we get a govt. driven to expand business and exporting, driven to change the law and introduce some game makers then we will continue to fall further and further behind.

    And you know, many of us have been trying to get this message across for many years.

    Sadly though the socialists that seem to reign supreme in this “the daughter” of the “Mother Country” will never be inspired to change and make us great again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. EverlastingFire (291 comments) says:

    I am what is considered ‘Youth’ in this country, and I also live in the region with the highest unemployment (10% – 11,000 people unemployed). It’s been a long two months but I was able to finally secure a job, though not in the field I studied, but it will do for the time being.

    My point is – the work is out there. Anyone whose willing to commit themselves to finding a job should have one – whether they like it or not – in at least 3 – 4 months. The main problem is people don’t take the time to best approach a job opportunity with appearance, interview skills and CV presentation etc. Then of course you have the people who just don’t want to fucking work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. scanner (340 comments) says:

    As an employer effected by the change in youth rates of pay I offer the following –
    we employed at least three school girls at a time, as casuals and after school employees, during this time we put up with, in exchange for a lesser rate of pay, the usual crap that goes with teenage girls, boyfriends, lack of work ethic, timekeeping, learning to drink, etc.
    We worked on a “make it or move out” system, and if they didn’t make the grade there wasn’t a job for them, in a retail business these kids make mistakes that can cost money, such is life.
    95% of the kids we employed stayed with us and went onto adult rates, and then moved through to full time jobs after having done an “apprenticeship” – Result Win – Win
    The abolition of youth rates meant the end of this arrangement, we now employ only mature people as they cost the same as a youth, without the problems.
    No one wins, except the Labour party who all rush off and give each other a big hug, then they have the nuts to bellyache about youth unemployment, they caused it, so STFU!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Jack5 (4,589 comments) says:

    Yes youth rates, but also more, much more emphasis on apprenticeships, including support to keep them going through sharp downturns as at present.

    Our education system is disastrous for boys at present. Unless we get boys into jobs with a chance to progress, earn a decent living, and have a reasonable chance of going into business if they want to, or go up the promotion ladder where they are, this country is headed for a mountain of trouble. The surge in support for fascism in Britain, and I presume also in other West European countries, is coming from young disaffected men. The most dangerous ones have gone straight into the Army, and after war service find themselves out on the street with no prospects, no civilian-work skills, and perhaps physical and mental wounds to recover from.

    But look out NZ, too, if in ten years or so a bright nutter comes along, a Kyle Chapman with a brain.

    Some north European countries have low youth unemployment rates compared with overall employment rates because they have extremely extensive apprenticeship schemes covering industries including banking and other white collar work that in NZ would probably be filled with graduates. The Germans have tightly focused their main universities on industry, too, except for a few doing research. Polytechnics provide training for miserably paid apprentices on two or three days a week. When the kids finish their three years work they have skill and work experience.

    Our polytechnics may have been better for the country when they were the old secondary technical colleges. In the transition to polytechnics skills like engineering have been downgraded and a hoard of politically correct studies added. For example, I understand about a dozen polytechnics and universities are churning out journalists — when the MSM is under pressure and the PR bubble in Parliament and Govt departments and SOEs is about to burst.

    Unnecessary qualifications creep has been occurring everywhere. For example, are accountants better when they are all fulltime university trained on student debt, compared with old days when they worked and studied part-time?

    The dangerous Chapman-with-brains, logs on his shoulders and high student debt will come from some polytechnic or university course with near-zero career prospects.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    I pasted the following document link on Jacinda’s page. The problem is ? Government Interference. So, get the government out from the business of regulating minimum wages and the problem will go away.

    MINIMUM WAGES, LABOR MARKET INSTITUTIONS, AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT:
    A CROSS-NATIONAL ANALYSIS

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. ben (2,396 comments) says:

    The motivation behind increasing the minimum wage and abolishing youth rates was good.

    Was it really though? Almost any economist or anyone who studies demand for labour will tell you minimum wage reduces employment. What has happened is entirely foreseeable. Minimum wage makes it illegal to write an agreement with somebody who cannot produce at least the amount per hour required by the minimum wage. That is what minimum wage legislation is.

    Now for anybody not in a position, through youth and inexperience and lack of qualification, to produce value of at least the minimum wage, what intentions make their unemployment good? Is it good to give youth who are lucky enough to get a job and have it survive a minimum wage increase a higher wage when others are locked out entirely? Is it good to put more people onto a benefit before they can get a first job? Is it good to have those people face marginal effective tax rates as high as 90%? Is it really good to trap them in welfare like that? Is it good to so arbitrarily interfere with the extraordinarily valuable right of two adults to write an enforceable contract? And, even for those lucky enough to keep their minimum wage jobs, is it still a good thing once we take into account all the things employers must do to get the necessary value of of their now-costly employees – basically a tougher employer who needs their pound of flesh to justify continuing to employing minimum wage workers?

    I say no. Good intentions with entirely forseeable bad outcomes is bad policy. Period.

    Scanner: great comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. ben (2,396 comments) says:

    Piggy, few are helped by minimum wage policy – not youth, not the unemployed, not those who lose their jobs as a result of it, not employers, and not consumers. Older, low skills workers who compete with youth benefit from it, and unions who represent those workers benefit. That’s it. See Scanner’s post for why. These groups lose from minimum wage legislation in a boom or a bust, the only question is how much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Fale Andrew Lesa (473 comments) says:

    Sadly, I don’t agree.

    Raising the minimum wage in New Zealand may be seen as a short-term flaw but what many here fail to acknowledge is the current economic climate alongside the need for vitally important investment in the long-term future of New Zealand.
    Slowly, I believe that NZ Employers will begin to accept that young kiwis are as equally progressive as their adult counterparts and anyone that expected this to occur over night is politically deluded.

    Change does not come in dinosaur movements, it comes gradually with the acceptance of such implementations and as society adapts. By seeking an overview of case studies like Youth employment in America one can confidently conclude that there are flaws within the American youth employment market that will and can be avoided here.

    I started working for $5.50 an hour at the age of 15years and at a local super market – if capitalism claims to be an equal ladder of economic progress and competition, why than are young people subjected to the same employment expectations and work load yet paid unequally compared to their adult colleagues?
    I say we move forward with the youth employment market and not backward. In the long-run we can expect positive change but this can only be achieved when the current economic climate has passed and encouragement is continuously pressed against NZ Employers proving that young kiwis are just as hard working and productive as the more mature and in this sense deserve to be paid a bit more than $5.50 an hour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Anthony (768 comments) says:

    My teenage daughter is doing some work as a gym instructor but that is a skilled job and she has to deal with young kids. She said she would rather do something less stressful like pack shelves or collect supermarket trolleys – and it pays exactly the same given there are no youth rates.

    Of course supermarkets are less inclined to hire school kids now as why would they take on someone with no experience when they can pay the same and get someone with at least some track record?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Viking2 (11,132 comments) says:

    Well of course we have the Nats. appallingly designed youth employment subsidy. I posted that it was a destined to fail scheme at the time and so it is. For an outfit that supposedly support business they fail dismally to consult with anyone except the public service servants that surround them on a daily basis.

    Another fail for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneur versus the bureaucracy.
    Which is what I said a few posts back.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/3043080/Artists-diaries-hit-with-levy/

    Artist’s diaries hit with levy
    CATHERINE HARRIS – The Dominion Post
    Last updated 05:00 09/11/2009

    A Wellington artist says bureaucracy gone mad has forced him out of his fledgling business making diaries.

    Michael McCormack, an artist of Irish extraction living in Island Bay, found success when he produced a diary featuring his works of Wellington scenes in 2008.

    But when he had another run made in China for 2009, he was surprised to find he could not pick them up until he paid a 53 per cent “anti-dumping” levy.

    Talks with the Economic Development Ministry revealed that, with a few select items such as diaries, a levy has been enforced to deter countries selling items in New Zealand at cheaper prices than they do at home.

    The ministry made no distinction between Kiwis who outsourced orders and other importers.

    Mr McCormack said he had been gobsmacked. “I’m an artist and this is a way for me to pay my bills.

    “I argued that my diary was just a gift book, with small local market potential, sold on consignment to a few shops. How could I possibly be accused of dumping?”

    At one point, he said, well-meaning ministry staff suggested he re-export the diaries to Australia, even though they featured Wellington scenes.

    The cost of the diaries plus tax was $9000, and he still had about 1000 stored under his house although he had managed to sell about half.

    Mr McCormack said his bugbear was not the leftover stock, which was to be expected in the risky publishing game, but more about the levy and the opportunity lost to build a market.

    “Once someone gets used to your diary, they’ll want it year after year, so I’m getting lots of people in now.”

    Ministry spokeswoman Emilia Mazur said ministerial approval was being sought for a refund for Mr McCormack and it was hoped that could be done before Christmas.

    “We appreciate this is a frustrating situation for Michael,” she said.

    The diary duties were imposed after a complaint from the New Zealand industry, of which Croxley Stationery is the largest producer.

    The levies could be applied only if there was evidence not only of dumping but that it was hurting, or threatening to hurt, New Zealand manufacturers of the same product.

    Ms Mazur said Mr McCormack would get a 60 per cent refund on his duty based on World Trade Organisation rules on dumping margins at the time of importation and investigation.

    The re-exporting idea had been suggested as a way of getting Mr McCormack a refund since the current anti-dumping legislation did not allow for it. However, work on an amendment was under way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Brian Smaller (3,991 comments) says:

    I have a job position and there are two candidates. A 17 year old and a 40 year old. I’d take the older guy who probably has a family any day if I had to pay them the same rate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Jeff83 (771 comments) says:

    Always opposed the abolishment of youth rates for the reason that they represented less productivity and experience and a greater risk.

    However attributing all of it to that would be an overstatement. Two of the greatest sectors which employ youth are retail and tourism (hotels / and other entertainment like things) both of which have been hurt very hard. You would accordingly expect less staff in these times and the easiest is to let go casual staff or not replace them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. KiwiGreg (3,176 comments) says:

    “Always opposed the abolishment of youth rates for the reason that they represented less productivity and experience and a greater risk.”

    Did you mean to write that? Surely the latter factors mean that arbitrarily imposing a higher cost on employing them leads directly to not employing them.

    Re the US – there is a federal minimum wage and most states have them as well. I’m pretty sure you dont have to pay it but if you dont you cant do any work for the relevant state. The states with the highest minimum wage also tend to have the highest unemployment

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ben (2,396 comments) says:

    Fale, the fact is young people are not as productive and their more experienced counterparts. Experience really matters, and youth do not generally understand what matters in business and how things work. They make mistakes, are less reliable. Not that long ago, well ok, quite a while, I was myself a youth and not an especially good employee. Looking back, I can see I made mistakes that I can now understand why my employer was so unhappy with. At the time I recall confusion and not understanding the problem – but now I can.

    On the whole, and with all good intentions and hard work, youth still produce less for their employer. So forcing employers to pay just as much for youth as they do for more experienced workers is going to lead to what else except unemployment. What good intentions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Commies, once again mistaking anice idea for a good idea then packing a sad when their experiment results don’t conform to the desired outcome.

    Reality can be a bitch that way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Fale Andrew Lesa (473 comments) says:

    Ben, I differ on your interpretation of facts and I find it foolish that you would assert such comments with very little substance and/or evidence behind them.
    Yes, I acknowledge that young people are initially inexperienced when being first introduced to the NZ Work force but how does one gain successful experience if one is not offered the opportunity in the very first instance?

    There are several economic factors and indicators that I believe you and others like you have failed to mention:

    Raising the NZ Minimum wage/abolishing youth rates is about the following and centralizes on pusuing the following progressively:

    - redistributing wealth
    - bridging the gap between rich and poor
    - bridging other social inequalities: women, youth, migrant workers, maori, pacific islanders, disabled etc are all disproportionately in low paid and casual employment.
    - an increasing step towards a living wage that meets the growing demands of consumer-society
    - contributing and pushing for a higher standard of living

    You don’t need to hold a masters in economic affairs to realize that as prices are rising, taxes are being increased, GST is expected to rise, ACC levies, etc – our pay packets and salaries are NOT rising to meet these excess costs.
    Economically what this means for the average New Zealander is simple – in order for them to meet these excess costs and tax increases they unfortunately have to fork out more from the take home pay and this does a number of things:

    - contributes to the overall instability of the household – in terms of financial management and purchase power.

    - contributes to ongoing rises in stress and depression levels – encouraging more domestic violence, insecurity and other social restraints, etc.

    - creates a decline in the business sector of New Zealand – particularly for the smaller and medium sized enterprises that rely on consumer purchase power to keep afloat. When kiwis have less to spend, businesses have less revenue to accumulate.

    New Zealand was once a developed country that was highly rated in terms of high living standards and overall satisfaction of society – sadly NZ has slipped from this platform and in accordance to the OECD and other international economic measuring organizations and their standards.
    Australia’s minimum wage is $13.00 and by using Australia as an economic case study for comparison we can successfully acknowledge that the economic repercussions on the Australian economy have been minimal in comparison to the United Sates where the average minimum wage is $5.00 dollars but where unemployment figures are approximately 10percent of total population.
    If young people are going to play a more important role in NZ Society they need to be given the right opportunities or young New Zealander’s will continue migrating over to Australia and/or Greater Europe – thousands of young people are being attracted to Australia and Western Europe in favour of better employment standards, more opportunity by employments and more faith in young employees to progress and expand.

    If this dialogue was followed here in New Zealand too I am optimistic that these Young New Zealander’s would be less inclined to leave NZ in search of better starting platforms for their future and career development.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.