Minimum Wage for Youth
The Herald reports:
The Council of Trade Unions (CTU) has welcomed the Government’s decision not to support the reintroduction of youth rates.
So the CTU is happy.
Opposition leader Phil Goff welcomed the decision.
“It’s crazy to suggest that any young person doing the same job exactly as older people should be paid automatically at a lower rate. It didn’t add up,” he told reporters.
As is Phil Goff. This means it must be wrong!
Goff’s own statement shows a total misrepresentation of the situation. Having a lower minimum wage for teenagers is exactly that – a lower floor. How the hell you translate that into “should be paid automatically at a lower rate” I do not know. Once again, for the really stupid people, – this is about a floor – not a ceiling, not an automatic rate that you must apply to teenagers.
In today’s NBR 24/7 column I rip into the Govt’s decision:
It really brings into doubt the seriousness of the Government in terms of job creation, when it persists with a law that has clearly priced many teenagers off the job market. …
Most teenagers are not seeking full-time employment. What they desperately want is to gain some work experience, and to gain some extra money on top of whatever parental or student support they have.
By agreeing to vote down Sir Roger’s bill, the Government is saying we want young people to be unable to gain work, unless an employer thinks they are worth almost $13 an hour. …
Later this year, overall unemployment should start tracking down. If youth unemployment remains persistently high, the Government will have no one to blame but themselves.
There are 45,000 teenagers unemployed. This decision is a very bad one.
March 19th, 2010 at 10:06 am
I cannot work out why the Nat’s would not support this bill, they (the Nat’s) have strayed so far from the right it is laughable.
Given the impending implosion of the ACT party and the selfish, bauble loving antics of its leader, it gives those of us on the right with no party to support.
March 19th, 2010 at 10:09 am
There are 45,000 teenagers unemployed, not because there’s no youth wage, but because of the destruction of the manufacturing economy that provided entry level jobs, by the ease with which employers can import labour rather than train apprentices and by the destruction of the public industries that once supported a large number of apprentices, like Telecom and Railway workshops,
These are the failed policies of the past that failures such as Douglas and Brash would inflict on us again and again as they persue their race to the bottom.
[DPF: Nonsense. Unemployment was very low up until the recession.]
March 19th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Saw on TV the other night a story abour American Somoa.
Slipped in was the fact that the imposition on the minimum US wage had lead to the closure of one of their larger employers , a tuna canning plant.
Minimum wages = maximum poverty.
March 19th, 2010 at 10:22 am
> By agreeing to vote down Sir Roger’s bill, the Government is saying we want young people to be unable to gain work, unless an
> employer thinks they are worth almost $13 an hour. …
That argument is repeated time and time again, but it doesn’t make it true. Businesses pay the minimum they can get away with, and sell for the maximum they can get away with. In economic fantasy land, their would be fierce competition which would drive the price of labour for essential jobs up, and drive the price of goods down to their marginal cost of production.
In the real world, wage competition is no where near that efficient, especially for youth. Youth take what they are given, even if it is so low it doesn’t cover the cost of their parents driving them to work, let alone the cost of their accomodation. Employers can afford to ignore the few that don’t and try to bargain. The employers need the employees – and they are jobs that must be filled.
A youth minimum wage also reduces the displacement of workers by parentally subsidised youth.
[DPF: Have you ever been an employer?]
March 19th, 2010 at 10:26 am
A1kmm
So you would rather see kids on the dole than earning $400 a week?
March 19th, 2010 at 10:28 am
So we have a government to the left of Helen Clark’s between 1999 and 2007.
Do the left really believe that time was a Dickensian hell and we only became a civilised country in 2008 thanks to comrade Sue?
John Key, you are pathetic
March 19th, 2010 at 10:30 am
And if we didn’t pay those teenagers anything, then they would probably all be employed! AWESOME!
I’m evidently torn on this – I don’t like minimum wages from a philosophical standpoint, for reasons that will be well known to the majority here; but from a practical point of view, I know there are plenty of employers who will treat minimum wages as ceilings, rather than floors.
March 19th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Isn’t the real answer to lower the minimum wage. That is the artifical floor – if it is pricing ANYONE out of the market it needs to be lower. Age alone should not justify a different artificial floor. Lower elderly wage? Female wage? Maori wage? That would address the issues those groups may have with lower employment. If there is a problem, just lower the minimum wage.
March 19th, 2010 at 10:39 am
way to ‘close that wage gap with australia’..there..eh theo..?
what hrly rate wd you like to see the most exploited workers receive..?
is $5 too high..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: You can't close the gap by legislating higher wages. Real world does not work that way.
And $5 an hour employed is a lot better than $0 an hour unemployed. You should try it some time]
March 19th, 2010 at 10:54 am
David , you forget that it is not just the minimum wage, it is the holiday pay of $1 and ACC around 2% so the average cost is closer to $14
March 19th, 2010 at 11:00 am
The Baron: I know there are plenty of employers who will treat minimum wages as ceilings, rather than floors.
Isn’t that another reason not to have minimum wages? Then it’s up to the individual and employers can’t use the minimum wage as floor.
But as usual, the Nats have now condemned a generation to be unemployed as they are not allowed to compete on wages and will lose out against the more experienced older person. And new jobs won’t be created as the productivity isn’t simply $13 an hour, so things just won’t get done.
March 19th, 2010 at 11:02 am
My wife and I went to McDonald’s on Monday to get a couple of McMuffins. We were shocked to find they now cost something like $4.20 each – just for the McMuffin (no hash brown, no coffee). From memory they used to cost around $3.00 the last time I bought one a few months ago.
The price was so much higher than we expected we queried it. The guy serving us told us it was correct, and that it was (wait for it) because youth rates had gone up.
I have no idea whether this is true or not, but on the face of it, it makes sense. McDonald’s has to pay staff more, stands to reason they will pass the cost on to their customers. And they’re perfectly justified in doing this. But I’ll tell you this – it will be a very long time, and I will have to be pretty damn hungry, before I lay out $4.20 on a Bacon McMuffin again. Mc Donald’s is going to lose my business if these price rises apply across the board (okay, they don’t get a whole lot of business from me now, so I doubt they’re quaking in their shoes …)
I don’t know how many other people will do the same, but I wonder if McDonald’s will notice a decline in sales? If so, what happens to all those employees getting paid $12.75 an hour to say, “Would you like fries with that?” Or will people just bite the bullet (and the burger) and pay more?
March 19th, 2010 at 11:09 am
@graham: I’ve seen some analyses suggesting that because poor workers disproportionately bear the burden on minimum wages in that they’re more likely to purchase goods made with minimum wage labour, the effects of minimum wages on the poor are worse than consideration only of the labour market side would have you believe.
March 19th, 2010 at 11:10 am
It’s crazy to suggest that any young person doing a half arsed job when older people will show up and work without a sense of entitelment should get the smae money as someone with a proven work history and this will ensure that no one will take a chance on them, because thats what taking on a youth is, a bloody big risk.
It doesn’t add up.
As always with left wingers its about what they can spin, not reality.
March 19th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Ah, yes, LeftRightOut and phil, you were right all along. All NZ need do is to pay a higher minumum wage and jobs will automatically become available for everyone. After all, which consumer of manufactured goods or services would not want to pay more for the NZ version!
March 19th, 2010 at 11:18 am
“..You should try it some time]..”
and you should do something about the addictions to flesh/fat/blood/’bad’ food/drink .. that encumber you..
eh..?
seeing as we are getting ‘personal’..
and hey..how much of your income is sucked from the public tit/trough..?
eh..?
seeing as we are getting ‘personal’..eh..?
you blank blank blank little blank..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: I have a mixture of public and private sector clients. None of them are forced to use my company. They choose to do so and get a service in return. Your decision to be on a benefit, despite clearly being capable of working, forces taxpayers to fund you]
March 19th, 2010 at 11:26 am
“you should try it sometime…”
DPF, I think you may have struck a nerve there, judging by philu’s last comment.
March 19th, 2010 at 11:27 am
This decision is simply indefensible, on every level. It is associated with a very large spike in unemployment unseen in over twenty years, and theory tells us this is exactly what we should have expected.
It is hard to overstate the cynical nature of this. Labour did not enact this because they thought it could help youths. They did it because it reduces competition for unions – their constituency. New Zealand’s young people are simply being used as pawns in a bigger game where unions win at the expense of 16-18 year olds. What a disgrace.
It takes away the right of youths to negotiate a mutually agreeable work rate. I can recall the desperation I had in my youth of getting a job, at any rate, for the experience. I was fully aware of the importance of getting that on to my cv at every level – for confidence, for the learning, for the value in future years for improved job prospects, to avoid boredom, the thrill of being productive. The money was, quite honestly, about the last thing I was thinking about. I was living at home, secure, and not in any need of money. That is the situation I suspect for most youth workers.
So how utterly arbitrary for Goff and now Key to pick one dimension of this matrix of benefits and set a threshold so high as to price youths out entirely.
March 19th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Na, it’s a smart decision.
If teenagers are out of work, then surley that means that older people are doing that work instead. How many adult jobs has this move saved? And older workers are more generally motivated to vote.
But I doubt that screwing over teenagers is the motivation – more the screaming hebegies we’d get from the left if this went through.
March 19th, 2010 at 11:37 am
To be honest, I am torn here.
While a youth rate may encourage employers to take a chance on younger employees, the lack of workplace opportunities that the elimination of youth rates causes may give the impetus for young people to remain in education for longer, and encourage the younger person to participate in the training needed to be effective in the workplace in the first place.
There is a delicate balance needed here.
March 19th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Exactly right DPF — the high youth unemployment is in my mind a direct result of the abolition of youth rates and the introduction of an artificially high minimum wage for all workers. I am sure that many youth would prefer to work at a lower wage rather than be unemployed. They know that if they work hard and upgrade their skills and experience they will get paid higher further down the track.
A very poor decision by the National government and further fuel to the fire of those who say that National is simply Labour lite. We need visionary transformative leadership — not spineless backing away from every hard decision.
March 19th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
What about the flip-side? A young person who does a better job than an older one but still gets paid less than the older worker because of their age?
From experience my own personal experience i know this to be the case. I started working in a supermarket in 2006 aged 15 and received $7.46 an hour, while those over 16 were on $8, and those over 18 were on $10. Within a few weeks of starting my job I was very much up to speed was and was a far more efficient worker than most of the over 18 year old employees, but because of my age I still got paid less regardless of the fact I was the much better employee.
“But what about gaining all that experience?”
-I worked in a supermarket, not really the experience I was after. At the end of the day I was in it for the cold hard cash, and the fact I was being paid less built up bitter resentment in me towards my employer, though eventually that ended and i still work for the company now part-time for $14 an hour while i go through uni, the raise only coming through successive raising of the minimum wage and the work of the union in negotiating. (Don’t worry I’m not a unionist, I don’t even belong to it but pretty much what they get, we get.)
“Good workers will talk to their boss about their performance and be rewarded accordingly”
-False. At the end of the day it was exactly what people have already said here, a business will pay as little as possible to make the biggest possible profit.
At the end of the day minimum wage does discriminate, young people might have a bad reputation, but if they are as able, and they are doing the same work as an older employee there is no reason for them to be getting paid less.
My 2 cents.
March 19th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
This is politically driven, not ideological. Note here that I’m using ideological to mean that someone actually thought about it and has a principled position on whether it is good or not.
The political maths is simple. Imaging this law passes, and the youth rate becomes lower than the adult rate. The impact is:
– a large number of young people get a small pay cut. They blame you, and don’t vote for you
– a smallish number of young people get a job at a slightly lower rate, but otherwise wouldn’t have a job. They completely fail to realise that their job is entirely because of this policy, and blame you for the pay cut and don’t vote for you
– the families and friends of these people think even less about it than those affected, think you’re screwing little johnny, and also don’t vote for you
– a small number of people, who have half a brain, know that we did the right thing. They were already voting for you anyway, because ACT imploded and nobody else in NZ politics is even remotely on the right path.
So, reintroducing the youth wage is net a vote loser, despite being a very good policy in practical terms. Such is the result of a democratic society. I’d propose a benevolent dictatorship instead if it weren’t for the fact that most (but not all) of them go severely wrong and descend into Gadaffi like exercises of power where you focus on having good looking women as your bodyguards (http://medelhi.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/gadafettes01.jpg?w=400&h=237)
March 19th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Now if I was an enterprising young thing looking for work here’s what I would propose to a prospective employer to get my foot in the door:
Now I know you have to pay me the minimum youth wage of (around) $13 per hour, and perhaps you see this as a risk you’re not prepared to take when you can employ an adult for not much more. How about I gift you say ten hours per week, and you pay me say $13 per hour for the other official thirty hours (out of forty). If I prove myself we can increase my hours to the full forty hours per week and maintain the same hourly rate.
Surely this would be a win win for all concerned?
March 19th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
“Later this year, overall unemployment should start tracking down. If youth unemployment remains persistently high, the Government will have no one to blame but themselves.”
In 2005 we had 280,000 or so youths and in 2010 we have 305,000 or so youths. And you say that youth unemployment has increased between 2005 and 2010. And that is the governments fault.
March 19th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Correction:
I meant ‘minimum wage’ as opposed to ‘minimum youth rate’ – but you get the gist.
March 19th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Sigh And its going to get worse. The BB generation aint looking at retiring like their parents did at 60 or 65. they are fitter healthier than any generation before them. Employers are going to employ them over the yoof for all the usual reasons.
They are dependable dont suffer Mondaymorningitis flexible knowledgeable socialble etc etc.
They will have Nat Super plus their other retirement income so moneys not the issue it about getting out and about using their skills ann keeping their brains active meeting people etc etc.
And NO Gumint can stop this happening And setting an artifical minimum rate for the yoof that is more than employers are prepared to pay with guarantee One thing and One thing only
Yoof on unemployed benefit time on their hands.
Remember the Devil find work for idle hands
March 19th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
“and hey..how much of your income is sucked from the public tit/trough..?”
Says the drug user whose entire income is sucked from the public teat.
Gettign his daily iron content via irony.
March 19th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
no..the ‘irony’..is a man who derives a sizable percentage of his income from playing/working the public trough..doing ‘surveys’ for pollies..
..having the nerve to sole-parent-bash..
..eh..?
(question:..how many sole parent families could be supported on the monies farrar gets from the gummint/taxpayers..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: I don't sole parent bash. I criticise you only because you are clearly capable of work, and clearly have the time to work, but have made a lifestyle decision to be reliant on the taxpayer instead.]
March 19th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
I always laugh at the way the left constantly keep trying to rewrite history, if I had a dollar for every time one of the wankers wrote “failed policies of the past” I would be a rich man.
It is time that we on the right (so that excludes most National party supporters) started highlighting the failed policies of Kullen and Klark.
There is no shortage of them.
March 19th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
They should have adifferent wage for teenagers.
they should legislate the teenagers rate at 50 percent of average wage, about what the minimum wage is now and legislate the the other minimum wage at 66 percent of average, about 15 dollars per hour.
March 19th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
“(question:..how many sole parent families could be supported on the monies farrar gets from the gummint/taxpayers..?”
Answer….None, the bastards should be out earning a living and setting an example for their kids.
March 19th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
I have a story about minimum wages which happened in about 1934 and effected me and my family to this day.
In the year stated above my grandfather operated a Mom n Pop business in Auckland. They had one paid employee who was happy to have a job, seeing as how it was still the midst of the great depression.
The labour government of the time introduced a minimum wage which put my grandfather in the position of being unable to meet the employee’s wages.
To avoid closing the business down, my grandfather was forced to terminate the employee, and took my 14 yr old father from school, both to save school fees I imagine but most definitely to fill the gap in the business as much as possible.
This meant the end of my father’s formal education. Although he tried to make up for it subsequently and after his war service, this effected his career and consequently his families wellbeing. Effects that we, his children, feel until this day.
As most businesses in NZ then and now, have only a few employees, I wonder how many others were effected similarly.
What actual good this minimum wage law in 1934 did is difficult to see, and I think minimum wages have an impact no different today than in 1934.
March 19th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Minimum Wage for Youth … what about a real wage for Adults.
Catch 22… OZZIE for wage earners…. Youth rates for businesses… Auckland for Immigration…
and the people go round and round and the stocks go up and down.
March 19th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Yep this decision seems completely illogical. The evidence from the last time youth un-employment was high and youth rates were introduced simply needs to be studied to see how very successful it was. Employers will always favour experience and the courtesy, industry, and discipline that usually accompanies it over the unproven school-leavers who would vie for the same job on the same pay.
March 19th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Surely this would be a win win for all concerned?
What happens now is youth are still paid youth rates for the first three(?) months of their employment, then they go to the minimum.
[DPF: One can pay an apprentice rate for the first 200 hours (1 month basically)]
March 19th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Stephen 2:08 pm,
Ok, but what do you think about the idea for youth to gift ‘x’ hours a week to offset their lack of experience/skills/age/risk until they have convinced prospective employers of their worth? This could be totally informal ie employed officially for 30 hours per week, but actually work 40 (ie gift 10 hours per week) for example.
March 19th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
I think its a great idea Kris. I’d love to see more slaves being used. Next you’ll be telling me waiters should not be paid at all, but should rely on tips.
March 19th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
So the National party oppose this legislation when Labour were in power and support retaining it when they are in power.
What a bunch of complete socialist tossers.
March 19th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
[DPF: Nonsense. Unemployment was very low up until the recession.]
So its the recession then, not wages, that are at issue, in your opinion?
Now, tell me again about the outcome of the Jobs Summit and how many new jobs have been created by that wank fest.
And then, please direct me to National’s policies for ending the recession, recession proofing the economy and catching up to Oz. real policies, though, not PR puff pieces which is all we seem to see.
Nz currently does not have a government, it has a poll driven bunch of managerialists without a decent idea among them.
[DPF: I'm not here to defend National. In case you missed it in your stupidity I have slammed them for their policy on the minimum youth wage as I think it will keep youth unemployment high]
March 19th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Big Bruv
your comment re ACT may in the words of Mark Twain be “The implosion of the act party is much exaggerated” The disillusioned National voter next election is highly unlikely to vote Liarbour/Greens, Winston first won’t be there so unless they identify as Maori they will not vote unless a new party – perhaps a Referendum Party( now theres a thought) of independents springs up National will remain the government but possibly with a majority vote low enough to give them credibility issues with the voters. I agree with you in general however that National is increasingly looking like Labour Lite or should that be shite?
March 19th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
(question:..how many sole parent families could be supported on the monies farrar gets from the gummint/taxpayers..?
Trying to comprehend your arguement here philu…
Is it that you think the money David earns from his private company that happens to do some of its work for the public sector is wrong, if so then why?
Or is it that you think no private company has a right to its profits and those profits should all be returned through taxes? If sothen are you bat shit crazy?
March 19th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
and..dpf..i am fucked if i am going to ‘justify’ to you..or anyone..my decisions to focus on raising my son..as best i could..
.and the study i have done since then..
..and the work i do on whoar..
and hey..!..don’t come the raw prawn..!..eh..?
you ‘work’ that gummint-scene/seam..
and i am betting that more than 50% of yr income..
..comes from that ‘working’ the gummint-spiggots…eh..?
with an upsurge since ‘your crew’ got into office eh..?
let the good times roll..!..eh..?
as i said..don’t come the raw prawn..eh..?
i don’t buy a word of it..
you lift your head..to sneer at the poorest/most disposessed..who are raising the generation that will support you in yr dotage..
.(.and who ..incidentally..fund yr lavish lifestyle/particular brand of gastronomical decadence..)
and then you just return to shovelling up that lovely ‘gummint-money’..eh..?
rank hypocrisy does give off quite an odour..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 19th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
“..[DPF: I’m not here to defend National. In case you missed it in your stupidity I..”
really..?..shit..!
and there we all were thinking you have used your website for the last five years..
as both a spruiker .. and an apologist for national..
go figure..!..eh..?
(thanks for putting us right on that..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 19th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
and you do ‘surveys’ for them..don’t you..?
isn’t that what you do..?
‘sweet..!..!..eh..?
money for old rope..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 19th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
it’s all about ‘contacts’..eh..?
your ‘business’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 19th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Phil….I think I speak for pretty much speak for everyone else when I say….earn a dollar and you will have earned a right to voice an opinion….until then your productive betters are talking so piss off.
March 19th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
james..meh..!
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 19th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
James
You sure speak for me, very well said.
March 19th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
“and..dpf..i am fucked if i am going to ‘justify’ to you..or anyone..my decisions to focus on raising my son..as best i could..”
While sitting on your arse all day while other hard working Kiwis go out to work so you can choose to set an atrocious example to your kids.
“..and the work i do on whoar..”
That is NOT work.
“you lift your head..to sneer at the poorest/most disposessed..”
Stop telling fucking lies, DPF has never sneered at the poorest, he rightly sneers at parasites like you who claim to be for the “poorest/most dispossessed” yet you have no issue with your lifestyle that is funded by those same people.
March 19th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
he sneers at sole parents..and engages in regular bouts of sole-parent bashing..
..(or fosters threads for that..)
go back to early ’05 archives..and check it out..
it has always been thus on kiwiblog..
and for him to claim any different is total horse-shit..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 19th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
“..parasites ..”..eh..?
y’know..!..some may feel that those making their riches..by sucking/feeding on the body politic..
..by doing ‘surveys’ for them..
..and producing absolutely s.f.a. of anything of any real ‘use’..
..are somewhat ‘parasitic’ in nature..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 19th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
The Lost Wages of Youth
Raising the minimum wage has put teens out of work
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 78366.html
There’s plenty of competition, but our vote for the recent act of Congress that has caused the most economic hardship goes to the May 2007 law raising the minimum wage in three stages to $7.25 an hour from $5.15. Rarely has a law hurt more vulnerable people more quickly.
A higher minimum wage has the biggest impact on those with the least experience or the fewest skills. That means in particular those looking for entry-level jobs, especially teenagers. And sure enough, as nearly all economic models predict, the higher minimum has wreaked havoc with teenage job seekers, well beyond what you would expect even in a recession.
Image
The chart compares the three-stage increase in the minimum wage with the jobless rate for teens age 16 to 19 since 2007. The first increase, to $5.85 from $5.15, came after a decade of no increases and when the overall jobless rate was below 5% and the teen rate was 14.9%. The demand for labor was sufficiently strong in many areas that most employers were probably willing to absorb the higher wage.
But as the minimum wage increased even as the overall job market began to worsen, the damage to teen job seekers became more severe. By the time the third increase to $7.25 from $6.55 took effect in July 2009, the teen jobless rate was 24.3%, and by October it peaked at 27.6% before dropping to 26.4% in January.
The story is even worse for black teens, who often have lower than average education levels or live in areas with fewer job prospects. Their jobless rate climbed from 38.5% before the third wage hike to 49.8% in November 2009, before falling back to 43.8% in January. For black male teens, the rate climbed to 52.2% in December from 39.2% in July. The difference between the jobless rates for black teens and the entire population widened by six percentage points from June 2007 to January 2010. Even assuming those rates fall as the job market improves this year, they will remain destructively high.
The third increase was especially ill-timed because it hit while the recession was ending but before employers have felt confident to rehire. To raise the cost of unskilled labor precisely when the jobless rate is heading toward 10% is an act of almost willful economic stupidity. A Congress that has spent $862 billion to create jobs thus managed with its wage increase to harm tens of thousands of entry-level job seekers. And it did so in the name of “compassion” and a “living wage.” In many cases that wage has since become zero.
The evidence is clear that increasing the minimum wage is an expensive and misguided way to try to move working families out of poverty. According to the Employment Policies Institute, 85% of people who earn the minimum wage aren’t the primary bread winner in a family.
Most readers remember the work habits they learned from their first job. Showing up on time, being courteous to customers, learning how to use technology—such habits are often more valuable than the actual paycheck. Studies have confirmed that when teens work during summer months or after school they have higher lifetime earnings than those who don’t work. So raising the minimum wage may inadvertently reduce lifetime earnings.
Most Democrats won’t bend on the minimum wage because it is a core union demand, but free thinkers ought to at least consider the teenage job problem. The long-term danger is that we are building in a higher level of structural unemployment as our least-skilled workers find it harder to climb onto the first rung of the job market.
Washington could at least establish a teenage, or sub-minimum, wage closer to $5 an hour. More than half of all minimum wage workers get a pay raise within one year on the job, so wages will rise naturally with experience and talent. More young people will be hired, and more will learn what it takes to get ahead in America.
http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=936&sid=913ba5dc454631c903da2e5d5e61c5d3&p=29082#p29082
March 19th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Most people can see that the youth rates law is good law.
However, and this is a huge HOWEVER; to agree with the law would mean accepting that Sir Roger Douglas was correct.
That is the bitter pill that parliamentarians will not swallow.
Progress for our country will be difficult while that state of mind holds sway.
March 19th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/d/f/e/48HansD_20070905_00001031-Minimum-Wage-New-Entrants-Amendment-Bill.htm
National Party MPs making the argument against abolishing youth rates in September 2007. Read their speeches and ask them all when you see them next if they agree with what they said, and if they did not why did they say it.
I just don’t get it. Read these speeches and the debate and the same reasons that existed then exist now.
All I can figure out is that this decision is a “fuck Sir Roger” vote and National simply don’t give a shit about youth unemployment and would rather make a point to Sir Roger and ACT.
March 19th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
well..i mean..i’m sure we can all sympathise with/get behind a resounding group “fuck Sir Roger” cheer..
eh..?
the (failed) pig-farmer is not loved by many..eh..?
funny that..!..eh..?
‘d’yareckon it was something he said..?
Phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 20th, 2010 at 7:09 am
My experience as an employer is that when I started to hire young workers (because all the employable adults were already employed), following on from the example of my previous employer, I paid youth rates. Very soon I was embarrassed by the energy the kids brought to the job and adopted a policy of one month’s trial at youth rates then up to adult rates. Soon after that, I just employed them on the basic adult award rate from the beginning.
But I do not agree with the amateur economists here who find correlation between increasing youth rates or minimum wage to increasing unemployment. One must also factor in the state of the economy. The OECD has done serious studies which may show correlation, but turn out to be not causative.
I accept that, and, when combined with my own experience, I endorse the status quo.
All business work in the same environment. Very few, if any, of our export businesses are labour intensive these days, otherwise they would head overseas, and the local businesses can all just pass it on to the consumer, who pays in the end.
Now, the same people who squeal at that are the same people who want to treat the young as chattels, to be whacked as they please, or who want to reduce their existing rights, as in the increase in the driving age.
We pay either way, either through the tax system in dole payments, or crime rates, or both, so let’s go the constructive route, for a change.
I support National’s stand and applaud them for it.
But don’t ask me about their GST increase!
March 20th, 2010 at 9:11 am
But don’t ask me about their GST increase!
Me neither. I’ve just done the calculations and I’ll be able to buy an extra packet of chewing gum a week.
We pay either way, either through the tax system in dole payments, or crime rates, or both, so let’s go the constructive route, for a change.
A lot of those whingeing about youth rates don’t care if crime goes up, as long as the criminals are in a privately run jail.
March 20th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Naa, the ACT Party isn’t imploding. We’re still bringing the tough questions to the house. We just need National to not be so scared of upsetting a few vocal lefties.
Phil U doesn’t like the free market deciding wages on merit… would you if you were Layabout Phil?