A good poster
October 21st, 2010 at 1:07 pm by David FarrarSir Roger makes an excellent point. Young inexperienced first time job seekers are being priced out of the market. Sure no one wants to stay on $10/hour for long, but hell if it will get you your first job, it is worth so much more than that as you then get actual work experience.
I started work at 12 as a paper boy and occassional dairy assistant. At 14 I was working every day after school. There is no way I would have got those jobs if they had to pay me full adult wages.
The massive increase in youth unemployment is partly because of young people being priced out of the market. And sadly, Labour wants to make it even worse – they want to make it impossible for any young job seeker to take a job for under $15 an hour.
Related posts:
- Stop pricing young workers out of the labour force
- Jim should back bringing back the youth minimum wage
- No link
- Youth Unemployment
October 21st, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Nice photo. Now, can we please have the names of the employers who are not employing people because they are too expensive, and of the young people who are unemployed but would have had jobs if there had been a youth rate. Because otherwise, it is just another ACT fairy story.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 1:23 pm
This was my concern from the onset of abolishing youth rates, we are now faced with very low youth employment. This was always the risk of doing away with youth rates.
I started working at 15, I was paid 6.50 an hour, and after two years I was paid 8.50. This didn’t bother me because I knew that at the end of the day I was getting experience, I was earning a living, and I was securing my independence.
I have a 15 year old brother who can’t get a job in customer service or retail because he lacks experience. This is the argument used for organisations that refuse to pay a 15 year old the same rate as a more experienced adult.
Something is not right with the status quo, and something should be done to reverse the cycle.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Nick R – I’m not really in the mood to give you my companies name. But I wouldnt employ a 17 year old kid if I had to pay him like a 28 year old.
Why would ya? Teenagers arent exactly the most reliable creatures. Sure, some are, but why take the risk.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 1:32 pm
That’s the best in the Douglas series by far, and very sad.
I guess in light of Labour’s current basket of policy announcements it shouldn’t be a surprise but Goff confirmed that they are going to push for the minimum wage going up to $15, all this will do is push even more people, young people especially, onto the dole queue for longer. A yawning gap is becoming apparent in the centre-left for a major party without union affiliations, because Labour are proving to be far too backward looking..
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 1:34 pm
“sadly, Labour wants to make it even worse”
Sure, but let’s not also miss the point that National are equally culpable for the current situation, arguably more so for the fact that they are in a stronger parliamentary position to actually effect a change in the law.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 1:36 pm
A clever ad, and one I agree with.
What a shame the effect is undermined by the use of the Parliamentary Services logo in the bottom right corner, meaning that Roger Douglas is using taxpayer money for political purposes.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Nice photo. Now, can we please have the names of the employers who are not employing people because they are too expensive, and of the young people who are unemployed but would have had jobs if there had been a youth rate. Because otherwise, it is just another ACT fairy story.
Youth unemployment rose to 24%
Maori youth unemployment rose to 41%
That will be a fucken long list.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 1:41 pm
I guess in light of Labour’s current basket of policy announcements it shouldn’t be a surprise but Goff confirmed that they are going to push for the minimum wage going up to $15, all this will do is push even more people, young people especially, onto the dole queue for longer.
Well, DUH Pete: more people on the dole = more Labour voters.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Nick R – What an infantile comment to a very topical post
If you knew anything at all about employing staff, the first thing thats gone are the jobs for a ‘ mates 14 year old after school.
because unless I pay him cash I have to pay a minimum wage when in fact all the 14 year old wants to do is learn to work , and earn a couple of quid for a game or label clothing – its not about the menial job per se, , but about learning to work,,
i.e turn up on time, clean , tidy, sober and wanting to be there.
Learning to work is alot more important than making supercillious comments here you wanker.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 1:45 pm
DPF, I did the whole paper boy thing as well. However, my first on-deck job paid me R1250 per month back in 1995. Why? Because this was a half year on / half year off job organised through the Technical College I studied at. That was the maximum any company was allowed to pay a student, even though they could pay less.
I still remember the start of that. First interview of my life, I am sitting there nervously and this angry little German fellow spits past, screaming and ranting about his laptop. Not having a clue who he was, I offered to have a look and see if I could help out as one of the other chaps was going in to be interviewed first. And hey, that was better than sitting waiting, eh?
Couldn’t fix the problem on the spot, but I did have a few recommendations. And then, much to my surprise, that angry little fellow turned out to be the owner of the company and the man who was due to interview me. And yeah, I got the job. And never bothered going back for my third year of study as I was learning more from him about development than any of my professors could teach me. Only went back to write exams.
Two years and a lot of hard work later I was managing his team of developers. Another two years on and I was one of the three founding members of a company that took, in the time I was there, three of the regional hospital installations. (For hundreds of millions of Rands)
I don’t know how much of that would have been possible if that maximum cap on salary was not in place. Or even if a minimum cap on salary was in place, especially if I contrast it with how much my wife has struggled to find a job in New Zealand where she can actually use her skills. Unless you’re willing to ignore your qualifications and work unskilled, unless you have experience, you’re basically useless. Fortunately she is also an enterprising spirit and took the numerous rejections as a good incentive to actually start her own business.
Actually. In writing this, I wonder. How much is due to individuals and how much government influence do we need on this?
Can I negotiate a lower than minimum wage rate with an employer if I am willing to work for one?
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 1:55 pm
The Greens are even worse, it seems they want to index the minimum wage to the medium wage: http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/5640
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 1:58 pm
It comes back to protectionism. Unions are gangs, they protect their members. They don’t want a kid taking a job that could have gone to one of the gang members.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:02 pm
No, that’s the whole problem.
More importantly, how did Roger Douglas get an old picture of Alan Duff in his borstal days?
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Pascal, you cannot contract out of the minimum wage act. so if given the choice between no job or less than the minimum wage, you are only legally allowed to pick no job.
I have gone out on my own recently and will need to look at staff at some point, however with the hassles i have had with previous staff i am wondering if its worth it.
Certainly for a lot of the meaningless jobs i need doing such as splitting and naming scanned files, editing spreadsheets etc i would normally have a student or someone do it, but its not worth $12.75 an hour.
So now i am looking at using Vworker.com. obviously its only for the jobs i can get done electronically so i still have to tidy my own office, but i can get a lot of work done with out a ton of regulatory crap.
i have just been quoted $20 US for a spreadsheet that will take me 3-4 hours myself (and i am bloody good at excel), and when finished will save me 20 minutes a client. i would need to pay at least $50 in NZ, plus Kiwisaver, ACC, holiday pay and all that other crap.
this will keep happening as long as we have such rediculous laws on employment.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:04 pm
What’s the problem? You’ve got a sack at will 90 day bill in place, so what’s the risk? Right?
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:06 pm
The problem is, the minimum wage is over-pricing young people. So less people are buying. You can’t defy gravity and you can’t fool the market.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Pauleastbay>but about learning to work
It is also about getting a good reference for when you go for a proper job. I used to employ graduate trainees. A good reference from a holiday or after-school employer always impressed me. Absence of one rang warning bells, either because the candidate was too lazy to get a holiday job or because they did something to warrant a bad reference. I rang up the stock supervisor at a supermarket once to be told that “I employ a lot of teenagers and students and I’m lucky if half of them turn up to work on any particular day… Josh always turns up and he works hard”. That helped secure Josh a job paying in the low $50k range back in 2004 or so. Last I heard he was working in Japan. I don’t know what the supermarket paid him, but it would have been a good investment whatever it was.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Pauleastbay – You don’t need a youth rate to make sure teenagers have good (or good enough) work habits. You have a 90 day no-questions-asked right to fire em’ – so you can try before you buy.
And calling people names on blogs doesn’t make you look cool or hard, despite what your mates might tell you.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Nick, what if they’re good, but still not worth the minimum wage? Anyway, let me guess – you’re also opposed to the 90-day trial period?
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Nick R (53) Says:
October 21st, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Nick said “Nice photo. Now, can we please have the names of the employers who are not employing people because they are too expensive, and of the young people who are unemployed but would have had jobs if there had been a youth rate. Because otherwise, it is just another ACT fairy story”
What planet are you on son??
For years, I used to employ several young lads to do odd jobs at my factory after school, weekends and during the school holidays. All of them approached me for jobs. They were grateful for the work and the time I spent in explaining how the business worked. Not only did they get to appreciate the value of money, work ethics and personal responsibilites, they also received an insight into all facets of a business enterprise.
Nick, you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Don’t worry, National are going to fix this travesty.
Oh wait, I had nodded off and was dreaming. What a useless bunch we have running this country.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Oh boy NickR – you are obviously still young enough to be stupid and don’t have teenagers. We have a company which has 30+ employees NZ – more overseas. We have been burnt badly by teenagers in the last 5 years. Didn’t have a problem previously, but would think twice about employing them now. So what has happened to the school leavers in the last 5 years?
We have teenagers – and have been through exactly the scenario you don’t believe happens NickR. My step-daughter decided she was too good for school – and just didn’t bother turning up. Finding a job to start with (she was only about 16 at the time) was ok – she got a job at New World. She lasted 1 day – didn’t like being on her feet. She did a business college course at our insistance, and we gave her work experience. She was late every day, and didn’t bother turning up at all one day. Suffice to say – she wasn’t given a position in our company. She went to work for a law firm, and the first week there – took a day off. She continued on this track for 3 months – taking probably a day off every 2 weeks (if not more). They finally made her redundant around the start of the recession. The 90 day law finally came into effect just after she was made redundant.
Her attitude was that she was only on minimum wage – why should she turn up every day – she was the cheapest to employ – they won’t get rid of her. Now I would guarantee that company – like us – would rather pay someone in a more reliable demographic to fill that role – its not going to cost anymore. And there are many more kids – just like her. They just go on the dole. As an update – after 18 months unemployed, she is now working in a call centre. She got this job only because they were able to risk employing her so if it didn’t work out in the first 90 days, they could get rid of her. She has been there about 6 months, and is a lot more reliable – not perfect, but getting there. She is now 20.
Stepson did 3 year course in mechanical engineering (basically a mechanic in old speak), and has had difficulty finding work because the employers aren’t prepared to take the risk on a greenhorn – particularly in todays slow economy. We are paying him to work in a workshop that can’t afford the wages to gain the experience he needs to be an employable proposition. Now he is reliable and turns up to work every day. Hopefully he will be able to go out and earn his own way soon!
16yo daughter would like to get work experience after school and holidays, but has had huge difficulties finding work because the shops would rather pay someone older with a bit of experience for the same position.
So while I’m happy that this situation has probably helped older people find work – be it part time, it doesn’t help our youngsters get a taste of work and earning their own money to pay for education or anything else they might save for. Also helps with their self worth and pride.
So don’t try and tell me that these are fictitious people. That really pisses me off!
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Malcolm – No, I support the 90 day trial period, particularly for youth workers. I just reckon the claims that the lack of a youth rate is causing mass youth unemployment are a bit overcooked and need some evidence to back them up. We’re in a recession. People are unemployed, and school leavers are always going to be worst affected.
And – as an aside – it’s odd that the poster makes the case for abolishing or lowering the minimum age for teenagers but not for anyone else. You’d think the same logic would apply for everyone.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Nick.R
Even with the 90 day thing genius I still have to pay him what I am told by legislation. And as I am a pretty good judge of character , refer to my above comment regarding you, I won’t be wanting to get rid of him
I am talking about wanting to pay a 14 year $8 after work for a couple of hours or in the holidays. Christ knowns how many other things I am up for ACC etc. But legally I can’t. So I don’t.
And yes I still think your first comment was that of an out of touch wanker and yes I am feeling pretty buff today with all my mates. Thanks.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Stop making shit up shady. We all know that this never happens in the real world!
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Rodger’s contribution to unemployment makes it a bit difficult to take him seriously. But, we should humour him while Act goe thru their death throes, as an honourable parting gesture…Two things:
two large US studies found youth rates made no diffference to unemployment/employablability.
Youth unemployment was a worse under rodger when we had youth rates…
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:34 pm
K Jones
Who commissioned the US studies? Which union was it?
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Excellent. Me too.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence. And it’s common sense; inflate the price, deflate the demand. And if it was having no effect (as you seem to be suggesting), then that would mean the minimum wage was serving no purpose and is not required. But more fundamentally, what is your objection to letting people and their prospective employers determine a mutually agreeable pay rate?
They have to start somewhere. There are a lot of people who think like you, so they have to introduce these radical ideas slowly.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:44 pm
The minimum wage is $12.25 I thought…
If Douglas is going to speak with authority he needs to get these things right…
If they brought in a negative income tax they could eliminate not only minimum wages but also benefits…
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:45 pm
We do have youth rates. $12.85 per hour, only the Government calls it the minimum wage. Time to get real;the minimum wage is really only youth rates no matter what others say.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:45 pm
I have a 16 year old daughter in the same position, unable to get a foot in the door because of the requirement to pay full wages. Employers want employees who are available at all hours of the day, and are not limited by the requirement to do silly other things, like attend school!
Youth rates encouraged employers to seek affordable, albeit restricted labour, and allowed the youth to get a foot in the door.
I don’t often agree with Sir Roger, but as a positive step towards productivity in the private sector, reducing youth uneployment, reducing youth crime, and getting some motivation in to some of our disaffected youth, I am surprised that such a simple, no cost step has not been taken! This, in conjunction with the 90 day trial legislation, could be just the fillip to address a great number of the economic and social issues that currently bedevil New Zealand.
It’s just common sense really.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 2:46 pm
All an artificially high youth rate does, apart from preventing honest employers from employing them, is fuel the black market.
Vote:Numerous employers are employing youth and paying the minimum wage for say 20 hours per week on the books and them paying them cash under the table for an additional 20 hours. Actual rate received for 40 hours is about $10.00 per hour.
Why don’t we wake up in this country and realise that you cannot regulate everything. The market will always find its own level.
All legislation does is make life very difficult for the honest!
October 21st, 2010 at 2:53 pm
@ PaulEast
Not a union – a bearded professor type –
Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (1994). Minimum wages and employment: A case
Vote:study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania’. The
American Economic Review, 84(4), 772-793.
Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Myth and measurement: The new economics
of the minimum wage. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
October 21st, 2010 at 3:07 pm
GJ
And of course, this means less tax revenue for the govt….so really, a minimum youth wage is a win for everyone.
If only 105 MPs could see the difference between something working in theory as opposed to practice.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Well done Sir Roger (the use of Parliamentary funding is unfortunate, but given the flood of propaganda directed at us by their opponents using public funds, excusable. What’s not so excusable is Act not pushing for major reform of the whole system, but that’s another story).
My first job was in radio. I was so keen to prove I knew what I was doing I learned electronics and built a station from scratch, then learned enough of the law to apply for a warrant to broadcast. But even with that behind me it was impossible to break in – at least at the age I wanted to. That’s how hard it was to get into in those days.
So the first job I took was casual, while still at school, and paid per story broadcast. That meant I might spend all night in a dreary council meeting and get nothing (though I quickly learnt that alternate ego massaging and pricking could generate a bit of controversy on which I could report
)
From there I got a part time job with another station (again while still at school), but only after I agreed to work for $85 a week – which is what my bus and train fare in and out of Wellington after school cost in those days.
Was I exploited? Probably. Did I get opportunities no one else my age got? Hell yes. Would I have got them if some idiot over rode my choice and insisted I get paid adult rates? Absolutely not.
MPs: thinking they’re smarter than us and taking away our choices since… forever.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 3:42 pm
I was not only being paid a very small amount in my first job but was also told to turn up with short back and sides, a grey suit, white shirt (was allowed the school tie) and black polished shoes (I had to borrow some money to comply)….for an 8 AM start….but hey, it was Deloitte, Plender,Griffiths and Co. I would have paid them (if I had the money) to employ me…so, why has this changed? Are kids today worth more than we were in the 60′s and if so can someone tell me why?
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Fully agree- youth rates should be reinstated and let’s get the youth back to work!
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 3:59 pm
“I started work at 12 as a paper boy and occassional dairy assistant. At 14 I was working every day after school. There is no way I would have got those jobs if they had to pay me full adult wages.”
Well actually as there is no minimum wage for under 16′s there is nothing stopping this from happening. Almost ever poster has harped on about the minimum wage stopping young teenagers from getting part time jobs when in fact this is completely incorrect as until you’re 16 the employer can pay you whatever they please.
A youth minimum wage does exist, for 16-17 year olds during their first 300 hours or 3 months employment, so once again, the opportunity to pay someone who just wants experiences is there.
Furthermore supermarkets have, and always will employ young people and they have no qualms in paying them the higher minimum wage. Why? Because no adult wants to be working weeknights and weekends, go into any supermarket on a Saturday or Sunday, most of the checkout chicks will be young people.
The minimum wage laws don’t prohibit youth employment, the prohibit youth being ripped off as it ensures equal pay for equal work. Why should an 18 year old get paid $2 more an hour for doing the exact same job as a 17 year old, assuming the both started the job at the same time? It’s nonsense.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 4:20 pm
At 15 I was on a D8 dozer ripping in a quarry, what you do get is too many employers wanting a man’s output yet they want to pay them a boy’s wage.
As for Douglas I did have some respect for him, but that as gone after his whining that he was entitled to trough and like other ACT MPs believed a bloke who had stolen a child’s identity was just the right type of person to be a ACT MP.
Vote:So when will Garrett be charged with perjury ?
October 21st, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Of course the left want higher youth rates, the evil bastards want the system to collapse. And when thousands of young are force into poverty they step in like knights in shiny armor. Don’t worry, vote for us we will force those nasty rich pricks to give you more of their wealth. And whats with the National Socialists, God what a bunch of useless fucks these wasters are, I thought they actually might like to get the country working. Guess it’s easier to borrow 240mill a week and pay people to do nothing. What a shit hole this country is becoming.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 4:48 pm
So grumpy I take it your output was as high as someone who had operated for years? Typical lefty, you are devoured from reality. I take it if you had received a mans wages then you would have been happy to pay part of the mortgage on the machine or the business. I take you would have been happy to hire or fire. I take it you would have been happy to talk suppliers and buyers. Sorry grumpy the world doesn’t work the way the left would have us believe, like it or not you have to start from the bottom and work your way up and if that includes a boys wage so be it.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 4:48 pm
“Now, can we please have the names of the employers who are not employing people because they are too expensive,”
Yeah, we will get right on that and report back immediately after you get back to us with the list of parents that aren’t smacking their kids because of the smacking ban.
What ACT is talking about is the unseen affect of a policy. The problem with an unseen affect is that it cant be seen, hence unseen. What the poster is trying to do is make those people seen (because they do actually exist even if they cant be pointed to).
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 5:43 pm
All very well for teenagers who live at home, are supported by Mum & Dad and don’t really need the money.
Will make the hard road even harder for teenagers who actually need to support themselves; why offer to pay them more than the yoof rate when they know full well no-one else is going to either? Hope they don’t decide it’s easier to steal your Bentley instead.
(And hypothetical teenagers whose existence doesn’t really need to be discussed is de rigeur on this thread already, so deal with it.)
So overall, no surprises here as government by old financially secure people, for old financially secure people, is what the Rich prick party has long been about. Poor people can just fuck off into some gutter and die, basically.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Way past time to correct this injustice.
This is also about Human Rights and I waited in vain for the various Govt. sponsored outfits to take the case of young people to the Human Rights Commission.
What right does any MP or Parliament have to tell anyone what their wages should be? Only their own vacuos assumption that theyknow best.
In South Auckland we have dozens of teenage girls working as prostitutes because they can name their own wage rate and dozens of teenage boys selling drugs because no one tells them how much money the are not allowed to make each hour.
Some girls suffer under this appalling legislation but without doubt young men are the most abused.
Disenfranchised in the education system, driven from school to a nothing existence until they qualify for the dole. Angry young men who get into mischief, finish up gaining a list of convictions that ultimately leads to jail.
That’s why in NZ we have very high incarceration rates for young men, high recidivst rates for those same men, young men detached from their familes and society. Ask Celia Lashley.
Young men whose jobs have been exported to China because its cheaper, young men that haven’t got a shit show in hell of gaining even basic experience in a work place.
What is their to like about the control and abuse of young peoples right’s to earn an income and to begin their life learning to workand learning new skills.
Let us employers take up that role as we did for about 1000 years before the socialist queer women came and changed the world. And for the benefit of NICKR I have been employing young people in various workplaces for about forty years but not so many sadly since this rule came into being. Just cannot afford the training time and other issues with those that young. And that really bothers me for the future especially as I have 3 adult sons who had to learn as youngpeople and now have 9 grandchildren, the girls who have been able to get work at supermarkets but the boys nowhere.
Our companies would have employed at least 2 young men over each of the last 2 years had it not been prohibittive. We currently are about to start producing a new product requiring basic skills and ideal for young men to learn with but sadly it’s not going to be. If the product is successful I will have to go to China to export to many countries. Just can’t compete with them for they will copy my product regardless of what money I spend to try to stop them.
That’s why weneed some sense in the labour market.
More important though it about the self estem of a big section of young people.
Vote:You know that stuff we constantly get pushed down our knecks via govt. propaganda.
So we livein hope.
October 21st, 2010 at 6:15 pm
@topherthegreat. The 18 yo has the potential to have had 2 years more experience than the 16yo – so deserves to earn more – regardless of whether they are doing the same job. Also – supermarkets will not (well not in our area) employ under 16yo’s. And yes – you do see young chicks employed in the supermarkets at night on weekends – particularly New World, but have you noticed they are not (as Paul Henry would call it) real New Zealanders. The real kiwi kids are out getting drunk where as the youngsters you are talking about are culturally different, and come from a culture where hard work is valued – as is the money they can earn. These same hard workers are represented highly in our top educational achievers as well. Just saying.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 6:34 pm
@ Shady
The 18 year old does has the potential for two years extra work, but what if they don’t and they have the same experience at the job? Are you saying that the 2 years of extra life experience the 18 year old has as a teenager justifies the 16 year old being paid 80% of their wage?
And as for them ‘not being New Zealanders’, perhaps it is just the area you live in, as where I live in New Zealander’s of all races, shapes and sizes are seen working weekends not just those that do not fit into your idealised view of what a New Zealander is. I personally began working at a supermarket at the age of 15, earning $7.20 an hour, I was quickly one of the better workers there, easily in the top three in doing what I did within a year. Did I get compensated for this? No. Older workers, were still getting paid more for doing exactly the same job though not to the same ability as myself. Is this right? No, of course not. Equal pay for equal work.
FYI, not all kiwi kids are out getting drunk all the time, you’re beloved MSM likes to put forth this idea of all young New Zealanders being drunken delinquents as this is what their much older audience wants to see.
Vote:“Hey Ethel, look what those danged kids are up to this time!”
Most young New Zealanders are hard working, and are equally represented in our top educational achievers as well.
October 21st, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Well done Roger. I hope that this advertisement has been personally delivered to every National Party MP. Smile and Wave has said that he will work with anyone “except Roger Douglas”. Maybe Roger should work with our soon-to-be unemployed film people to produce a movie called “An inconvenient truth” – Sub-title: “What our National Party MPs wish was true but isn’t”.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 6:46 pm
shady you are wrong and sound like a screaming socialist in saying age should bring more money.
Vote:My nephew is sixteen and is on the top hourly rate of a shelving crew at a super market among those still at school.
Of course being 1.9 metres and a 110kb does help.
So age should have no bearing on pay, it should be down to drive and ability.
October 21st, 2010 at 6:57 pm
I’ve posted the same on the topic before, that the minimum wage was originally supported by the (then) pro-eugenics left in order to eliminate these people from employment. In other words: the minimum wage was to limit employment to people whose work was worth the higher wage, through pricing inferior workers out of work and eliminating them AS A CLASS. See ‘Liberal Fascism’ by Jonah Goldberg.
Vote:Pro-Labour Party folks who vote out of some kind of romantic idea about “workers rights” should learn from this, as the eugenicists were right about the consequences. These consequences are WHY THOSE ON THE RIGHT CONTINUE TO OPPOSE IT TODAY.
Btw, don’t misconstrue this as an accusation that the left supports it for the same reason now. It’s fairly obvious they support it just out of pure demagogy, nothing more.
October 21st, 2010 at 6:58 pm
110kb
Plenty of growth there – according to Bill Gates 640kb is all you’ll ever need.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 1:08 am
DPF
So you provide the reason not to have youth rates. If you had never worked before you went to university there would have been a better chance to make a good socialist out of you before the bloody work ethic thing took over your young and impressionable mind. If we get a chance to indoctrinate people before they start working we get them as union members for life !
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 8:38 am
grumpyhori – well I obviously wasn’t being clear. If the 18yo has already been working on the checkout for 2 years, should the 16yo first time worker employed in the same position be paid the same rate? Their output might be exactly the same after 2 weeks. So do you reward the 16yo after being there 2 weeks because they have caught up in ability, or do you reward the 18yo who has been there for 2 years for their loyalty and longevity in their position. Same job – different scenarios.
I’m a firm believer in being paid what you’re worth – so we are actually in agreement. I would love to apply the same standards to teachers. I presume you agree in that respect too.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 8:40 am
I started on $5 / hour in 1992. That came with free food & board however.
Vote: