Youth Unemployment

May 5th, 2011 at 3:33 pm by David Farrar

The latest HLFS has some moderately good news in it.

  • 30,000 more jobs in the last quarter
  • 3,000 fewer unemployed
  • rate drops to 6.6%
  • NZ unemployment rate now 11th lowest of 34 in the OECD

However unemployment amongst under 20 year olds remains high – up from 25.5% to 27.5%. 6,000 fewer teenagers were in employment.

jacinda Ardern has said:

“Youth unemployment has now hit 27 percent for those aged 15-19; more than four times the average unemployment rate. We’ve reached crisis point, with more young people looking for work now than we have ever seen on record before,” Jacinda Ardern said.

It is a crisis, but one created by Labour (and not changed by National). Labour made it illegal for a teenager to accept a job for less than the adult minimum wage. They abolished the lower minimum wage for youth.

A 16 year old generally has no skills, no experience and lives at home. They would love to be able to earn a bit of money for say $10/hour. But Labour has priced them off the market. If an employer has a choice of an experienced 25 year old or a novice 16 year old, of course they will not choose the 16 year old.

The fact that teenage unemployment levels are increasing, while the overall unemployment level is falling, shows that getting rid of the youth minimum wage was a disaster for our teenagers. They deserve the chance to gain employment, and National should pledge to reintroduce a lower minimum wage for youth.

Tags: ,

116 Responses to “Youth Unemployment”

  1. peteremcc (341 comments) says:

    It’s disgusting that every part in parliament except ACT would prefer kids to be sitting on their bum on $4/hr on the dole than working for $10/hr.

    Just watch this answer by Paula Bennett to a question by Roger Douglas yesterday to see how useless it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uLMgszFRTk

    “I really have no other answer to that question.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    “Should”.

    That means – it would be philosophically the right thing to do to promise to reintroduce the youth minimum wage / remove the guarantee of youth’s getting adult minimum wage. (I always find the double negative of reintroducing youth minimum wage a bit of dissonance – it sounds like it’s increasing their pay, but it’s reducing it).

    Or, it means – it would be an election winning strategy for National to tell all parents and grandparents and students that they’re going to reduce pay for little Johnny.

    My problem is that a political decision like this takes courage, and is the kind of thing that absolutely draws down political capital – Labour would make hay. Not saying it’s the wrong thing to do (it is most clearly the right thing to do), but just bemoaning the fact that Labour did something they knew to be wrong, knowing that it would be almost impossible to reverse, for cheap political short term gains.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. slightlyright (93 comments) says:

    100% agree David likewise peteremcc, having had 16 year olds employed there is just no comparison with employing an adult worker (granted there is a spectrum of development / maturity) but reality is I would conservatively estimate my managers have to put an extra 25% supervision or more at 16 year old level and really do as they put it have to “teach them how to work” etc… I guess one would have expected this from the Greens/Labour none of whom have probably done collectively a days real work in their lives, but National needs to on this occasion at least listen to Roger Douglas on this, because the problem is glaringly obvious!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    Do we think Roger Douglas being involved makes it more or less likely that National will take action?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. big bruv (13,571 comments) says:

    Does anybody really believe that the unemployment rate is only 6.6%?

    I know of three men who are unemployed but refuse to sign on with WINZ, anybody who thinks that the rate is only 6.6% has rocks on their head.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. berend (1,676 comments) says:

    DPF: National should pledge to reintroduce a lower minimum wage for youth.

    I suggest people simply vote ACT. The only party who doesn’t want to play political football with unemployment.

    National is too busy borrowing $300 million a week to come up with any serious consideration of NZ’s economic situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. ben (2,414 comments) says:

    National didn’t just go along with Labour on this. National voted against the Douglas bill that would disconnect the youth and adult minimums. That makes National directly responsible for this mess, and Labour no less culpable.

    Shame on Ardern on trying to make capital out of a mess she helped create. But shame too on National for doing what it can to keep it going.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. poneke (280 comments) says:

    NZ unemployment rate now 11th lowest of 34 in the OECD

    For many years up to 2008, New Zealand vied with Korea to have the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD. Something happened in 2008 to change that for the worse, but I’m buggered if I can remember what.

    Does anybody really believe that the unemployment rate is only 6.6%? I know of three men who are unemployed but refuse to sign on with WINZ

    The unemployment rate has nothing to do with how many people sign on with WINZ.

    Our unemployment figures come from the Household Labour Force Survey which is a survey of some 10,000 people conducted every three months by Statistics New Zealand.

    It surveys how many people are in work (full and part time); how many are looking for work but can’t find a job (the latter two together are the “participation rate”, with the unemployment rate being the percentage of “participating” workers who cannot find work); and the number of people of working age not looking for work (for example, mothers with children opting not to enter the workforce, students of working age without a paid job, invalid beneficiaries not expected to work, etc).

    The methodology is similar to such surveys in other OECD (and other) countries, hence it enables us to make valid international comparisons — such as we are now Number 11 on world employment tables, but for many years until 2008, we vied with Korea to have the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Nick R (500 comments) says:

    One thing keeping the unemployment rate low is our booming trade in the export of working age people to Australia. I can’t wait to hear the Government take the credit for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    Poneke – source? Not because I randomly disbelieve you, but because I thought Australia’s unemployment rate was lower than NZ’s for much of the last 10 years.

    As for the event in 2008 – are you blaming the election of a National Govt, the removal of youth rates, or the GFC? And if the GFC, any comment on why NZ was hit harder than some other countries, and why NZ’s productive sector was technically in recession prior to the GFC (or at least so I’ve heard).

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

    This whole thing is a prime example of the employed looking after their own interests. Unions are not interested in the unemployed. They are solely interested in looking after the interests of their own. If that means pricing the unskilled out the job market, then that is too bad.

    National had a golden opportunity to do something about this and failed. Gutless, utterly gutless

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    If an employer has a choice of an experienced 25 year old or a novice 16 year old, of course they will not choose the 16 year old.

    If an employer has a choice between an experienced anyone and a novice anyone, of course they will not choose the novice.

    What did the experienced 25-year-old do to you, that you’d like him to be out of a job, replaced by a 16-year-old, just because he can’t legally accept $10/hour to compete with this proposed minimum wage?!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    Ryan, some jobs don’t exist currently, but would exist at $10 / hour. You’re assuming a zero sum total of jobs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Someone might be able answer this question (no rants please). Is the elimination of youth rates an ideological thing, or is it more of political strategy? It’s both, but does one come before the other?

    Viz, you create a problem for the Right that you can complain about, and force the Right to look bad if the bring back youth rates. Then when the Left is in power they can say to their youth supporters ‘aren’t we great, look what we do for you?’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. poneke (280 comments) says:

    source… I thought Australia’s unemployment rate was lower than NZ’s for much of the last 10 years

    Until 2009, our unemployment rate was consistently below Australia’s.

    I’m not going to spend my break trawling through Stats NZ and other sites for you. Do your own research. But here is one general Stats NZ link to get you started:

    http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/government_finance/central_government/nz-in-the-oecd/unemployment.aspx

    And one from 2009 on Australia’s unemployment rate falling below NZ’s:

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/new-zealand-unemployment-rate-surges-past-australias-107087

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    Ryan, some jobs don’t exist currently, but would exist at $10 / hour. You’re assuming a zero sum total of jobs.

    True, but I was addressing a zero-sum example.

    Of course, if we lowered the minimum wage enough, we’d keep creating more and more jobs.

    Then the people with jobs created around $4/hour or something would probably start complaining that it’s not enough to live on, but no one would listen to them. But then they’d get together and start bargaining collectively, threatening industrial action, getting better pay and incentivising more people to join unions!

    My God. Lowering of the minimum wage is a communist plot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. themono (132 comments) says:

    I don’t understand how this can be rationalised. There are plenty of non-skilled people above the age for the youth minimum wage out there.

    How can it possibly be right to say that if you are unskilled you can work for $x per hour if you are under a certain age, but $x+y per hour if you are over it?

    I don’t think there really is any rational grounds for a lower youth minimum wage. You could make the argument that the minimum wage in general should be lower (which would then be a totally different issue), but why introduce age discrimination if what you really want is skills discrimination?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    themono,

    The assumption is that age discrimination is a quick, effective form of skill discrimination. It’s a shortcut for efficiency.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Ruth (178 comments) says:

    I don’t think there really is any rational grounds for a lower youth minimum wage. You could make the argument that the minimum wage in general should be lower (which would then be a totally different issue), but why introduce age discrimination if what you really want is skills discrimination?

    I totally agree. IMO there should be no minimum wage at all. The whole thing should be a contract between employer and employee, no matter what the age or experience. One law for all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    @Poneke,

    “For many years up to 2008, New Zealand vied with Korea to have the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD. Something happened in 2008 to change that for the worse, but I’m buggered if I can remember what.”

    Yes, it was called the Global Financial Crisis. One would have to be seriously disconnected from reality not to be aware of it…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. poneke (280 comments) says:

    Yes, it was called the Global Financial Crisis. One would have to be seriously disconnected from reality not to be aware of it…

    It was satire. Many folk round here are so seriously disconnected from reality that they would not recognise it even if it hit them in the goolies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. toad (3,673 comments) says:

    @big bruv 4:05 pm

    The unemployment rate has nothing to do with the number of people who sign on with WINZ, bruv. It is calculated by Statistics NZ from the Household Labour Force Survey.

    But you are right, in that it does exclude people who are “jobless” – i.e. don’t have work, want work, but haven’t made recent positive efforts to find work, or are actively seeking work but not immediately available for it. The media often confuse “joblessness” and “unemployment” rates, as some have done this time.

    As of March 2011 there were 271,400 “jobless”, but only 155,000 “unemployed”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    @Poneke,

    Very good of you to have come out and discounted the election result as the cause then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    If an employer had to choose between employing an experienced thin person or a novice fat person, they’ll employ the thin person.

    Therefore, a fat minimum wage lower than the minimum wage for normals would lower fat unemployment, not by taking jobs from thin people but by creating jobs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    “but only 155,000 “unemployed”

    …and about that number of party votes for the Greens in the 2008 election

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. toad (3,673 comments) says:

    @Ruth 4:47 pm

    IMO there should be no minimum wage at all.

    Don Brash has advocated that too in the past. Scary!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    toad, I would appreciate if you could clarify the Green Party’s policies to reduce unemployment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. poneke (280 comments) says:

    Very good of you to have come out and discounted the election result as the cause then.

    I didn’t discount anything. I said my comment Something happened in 2008 to change that for the worse, but I’m buggered if I can remember what was satirical. All kinds of things happened in 2008. You’re the one who raised the election of that year, as well as the GFC.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,820 comments) says:

    Something happened in 2008

    What has Obama’s election got to do with the price of fish (In the Gulf of Mexico)? :roll:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. poneke (280 comments) says:

    It’s pretty clear from the date stamps on the comments in this blog that almost everyone is posting from work, and that they have now left for the day.

    DPF posted his missive at 3.33pm. The first comment was at 3.41pm. They came thick and fast until…. 5pm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,820 comments) says:

    Well it’s 6.30 am here in the UK. Polls open in 30 minutes so I can wonder down to my local polling station and vote NO to AV. Ain’t no party like a First Past the Post party. Another Conservative win in the making.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. toad (3,673 comments) says:

    @Rodders 5:00 pm

    toad, I would appreciate if you could clarify the Green Party’s policies to reduce unemployment.

    Here you go Rodders: http://www.greens.org.nz/gnd

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Bruce Hamilton (60 comments) says:

    One problem is that there are fixed costs in hiring somebody for any meaningful position, and youth tend to suffer from the usual delinquencies of the young and senile.

    Additional costs for young people can range from vehicle/ACC insurance, training – especially to keep safe, and basic worker common sense. I would not hire two youths at $10/hour even as cadets/trainees, I’d choose one older worker at $20/hour knowing that I’ll have less aggravation, because careful interviews can elicit candidates work habits.

    A well structured apprentice/cadet training system for youth would be of far more value to me as an employer, otherwise the full costs of youthful folly from inexperience are additional business costs. All people make mistakes, but good people only make the same mistake once, so I’d like it to be on somebody else’s dime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. KH (694 comments) says:

    Youth unemployment is at crisis. And undermining the whole future of our country. The outcomes of it will be with us for years.
    It seems the very amiable John Key has no really plan. (well mainly no idea at all of how to promote our long term economic health.)
    Apologies to DPF, who made this post another party political broadcast. Sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RRM (9,667 comments) says:

    I dunno DPF, the last few times I’ve been served at KFC it’s been by a yoof worker with as far as I can see no skills and no experience :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. ch123 (589 comments) says:

    Agreed. There are serious ramifications for youth unemployment now. High unemployment for the under 20s now will result in higher than before unemployment for those in their early 20s in years to come, because they have been unable to get work, and therefore *any* work experience, while they were in their teens. The most important thing about working when you are a teen is learning the work ethic.

    Me, I started my first after school job when I was at intermediate school delivering papers. Then delivering milk. Then working in a video shop. (Funny how all those sorts of jobs are dying out now as well). Then working in a bakery, cafes, fast food etc. So I’m 36 now and have had jobs ever since I was about 11 or 12.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    The only reason to introduce a youth minimum wage is because the minimum wage is too high and it is the only politically feasible way to avoid it.

    To discriminate on age is ideologically wrong. But the minimum wage itself is ideologically worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    It is not the government’s role to provide employment, it is the private sector.

    Stop whinging to government about it and demanding the political parties ‘create’ jobs when they can’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    toad (2,783) Says:
    May 5th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
    @Ruth 4:47 pm

    IMO there should be no minimum wage at all.

    Don Brash has advocated that too in the past. Scary!

    Only due to ignorance.

    Supporters of a minimum wage are supporters of policy that discriminates against Maori and minorities.

    Historically black unemployment was lower than white unemployment until the introduction of the Davis-Bacon act in the states.

    White South Africans also instituted minimum wages to stop black workers undercutting them and taking their jobs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull (4,215) Says:
    May 5th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
    If an employer has a choice of an experienced 25 year old or a novice 16 year old, of course they will not choose the 16 year old.

    If an employer has a choice between an experienced anyone and a novice anyone, of course they will not choose the novice.

    What did the experienced 25-year-old do to you, that you’d like him to be out of a job, replaced by a 16-year-old, just because he can’t legally accept $10/hour to compete with this proposed minimum wage?!

    What did the 16 year old do, that you’d like him out of a job, replaced because he can’t legally work for $10/hour?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    toad @5:42pm – thanks for that

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    The hypocrisy of the minimum wage is this.

    If the reasoning is $13ph is the least a person can be asked to live on, why do we only ask a very small proportion of the population (employers) to provide 45×13=$535 as a minimum standard of living when the rest of us are only willing to offer $200 per week as a minimum standard of living to the unemployed.

    Which one is the minimum a person can be expected to live on? The $200 all NZ taxpayers are willing to offer or the $500 we demand a very small number of NZ taxpayers to pay for?

    If the answer is $200 then the minimum wage has nothing to do with a minimum standard of living but rather it is a well intentioned, but misguided method to forcefully wring money from a democratically defenceless minority.

    If there is a minimum income to be provided (and there should be), it should be paid for by all taxpayers via the government, not a merely a select minority of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. ch123 (589 comments) says:

    “Stop whinging to government about it and demanding the political parties ‘create’ jobs when they can’t.”

    Lefties seem to think they can. Why else does the public service grow when Labour is in power? Of course that’s the only way a government can create actually jobs, i.e. by creating jobs that wouldn’t otherwise exist in the public sector. There is no other way governments can create jobs. That’s why I always laugh at an opposition party that asks what the government is doing about creating jobs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Viking2 (11,283 comments) says:

    Minimum youth wage rates are a Travesty against young people. They deny them basic human rights of freedom of association and the ability to pay there own way in the world.
    We’ve said all this before and unfortunately I have to take DPF to task for while he is a staunch supporter of removing them he has made excuses for the free enterprise party he associates with.
    Knowing Wayne Mapps Dad for years i doubt that the Mapps think this way and I’m sure many other Nats. actually want to control the lives of employees and employers like this BUT, the Whips were out, whether from spite or what I don’t know but the effect was that a group of gutless spineless National Party MP’s all recorded the same no vote against Roger Douglass ‘s Bill.

    My only logical reasoning that this harpened is because John Key has something that he doesn’t like about Roger. That’s petty and spiteful and the kind of stuff that school girls engage in.
    Its definitely not good leadership nor is it a Principled stand on a very important issue.

    Again it raises the need for whips on any bill except supply and confidence.
    These people are elected to represent their constituents and the have failed them massively. OK I know 16 year olds don’t vote but their parents and older siblings do.

    It should also be noted that the “unemployment” figure doesn’t include the many thousands who are filling in time at schools etc nor those that have moved to other countries to avoid be in the “unemployed” category of Govt. failure.

    The sooner this lot lose more of their useless MP’s to some of principle and understanding of real life the better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. rosscalverley (111 comments) says:

    Those ages between 15 and 19 should be at school anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Viking2 (11,283 comments) says:

    3/ There are around 64,000 (15-24) young people officially unemployed. 1,000 subsidized positions tackles only a small percentage. It is an inefficient use of taxpayer’s money to solve the problem of youth unemployment.

    8/ There is inherent unfairness in expecting one young person to pay for their own skills acquisition and subsidising the next.

    ( Good Point.) We allow students to be Trained at high cost and free loans but someone learning engineering or paper hanging or painting or even driving big rigs gets no such subsidy.
    Either that says we should apply the same rules across the board and allow student loans to trainees or we should cut the lot.)

    http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    rosscalverley (37) Says:
    May 5th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
    Those ages between 15 and 19 should be at school anyway.

    Its not your or my decision to make for them or their family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    Viking2 (3,972) Says:
    May 5th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
    3/ There are around 64,000 (15-24) young people officially unemployed. 1,000 subsidized positions tackles only a small percentage. It is an inefficient use of taxpayer’s money to solve the problem of youth unemployment.

    8/ There is inherent unfairness in expecting one young person to pay for their own skills acquisition and subsidising the next.

    ( Good Point.) We allow students to be Trained at high cost and free loans but someone learning engineering or paper hanging or painting or even driving big rigs gets no such subsidy.
    Either that says we should apply the same rules across the board and allow student loans to trainees or we should cut the lot.)

    http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/

    We shouldn’t pay for any of it.

    We should provide an accessible and affordable loan system to fund access to private education opportunities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. ch123 (589 comments) says:

    >> Those ages between 15 and 19 should be at school anyway.

    > Its not your or my decision to make for them or their family.

    And yet we have to pay for them when they go on the dole.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Inky_the_Red (744 comments) says:

    Do you think that young people should be protesting on the streets to be paid less?

    I have worked with many people of all ages. The fact is when people start a new job they are less efficient. I have not noticed age being a good predicting of how much they will achieve after 5 weeks. Many young people have enthusiasm that is missing from older people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    ch123 (94) Says:
    May 5th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
    >> Those ages between 15 and 19 should be at school anyway.

    > Its not your or my decision to make for them or their family.

    And yet we have to pay for them when they go on the dole.

    You have a problem with the dole?

    If we offer a social security net then back it up. Clarify the boundaries at the outset and then fulfill the obligations our government and we as taxpayers enter into.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    Inky_the_Red (464) Says:
    May 5th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
    Do you think that young people should be protesting on the streets to be paid less?

    I have worked with many people of all ages. The fact is when people start a new job they are less efficient. I have not noticed age being a good predicting of how much they will achieve after 5 weeks. Many young people have enthusiasm that is missing from older people.

    They should be protesting in the street about the illegality in this country of employing low skilled workers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    Does anyone here understand comparative statistics?

    If a total falls from 6.8 to 6.6 % and within that total the subset number of under 20 increases from 25.5 to 27.5% – there has been little change.

    As to the apparently (continuing) large number of youger people within the total – the longer a recession goes on the more the new labour market (young people) entrants will dominate unemployment numbers. As our recession was pre the GFC because of the high interest policy response by Bollard to the housing market bubble etc, it is no surprise that we would have a higher level of youth unemployment compared to nations with more recent unemployment.

    The minimum wage policy we have is designed to encourage young people to further their education and thus take our labour force to a higher skill level – to improve our productivity. It works best where government is active in fostering a full employment policy and providing employers with assistance to train workers on the job or offer work experience. So that while we have unemployment the labour force is maintained and ready for the recovery. Any country inclined to limit education places should think well on that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    DPF

    “However unemployment amongst under 20 year olds remains high – up from 25.5% to 27.5%. 6,000 fewer teenagers were in employment.”

    I don’t know how good you are with labour economics, but i can assure you, you’re always going to have that level of youth unemployment in a deregulated labour market. This is the way National structured that labour market in the 1990s. Without some comprehensive intervention, the children of “the mother of all budgets” are going to keep on getting churned up by the market, and end up in jail. These people are the collateral damage in your “efficient market”. Think about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. ch123 (589 comments) says:

    “You have a problem with the dole?
    If we offer a social security net then back it up. Clarify the boundaries at the outset and then fulfill the obligations our government and we as taxpayers enter into.”

    I have a problem with the dole for 15 to 19 year olds who haven’t had enough education to get themselves a job. If you can’t get work because you left school when you are 16 then we should not have to pay for you. On the other hand, school isn’t for everyone. And I support the taxpayer paying for training schemes to get kids trained and into work for trades etc if school isn’t for them. At the end of the day it’s one form of education or another.

    Mind you, it’s not like there are any jobs anyway…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. immigant (950 comments) says:

    I think that most of this debate is flawed based on the fact that in the HLFS when calculating youth unemployment – one is counted unemployed if they are not in full time study.
    Taking that into consideration I think the real question is why do we have so many under 20s not working AND not studying? God knows in NZ it is very easy to be a student if one concentrates just little bit. At that age you should be doing one or the other no fluffing about collecting the dole. The only alternative to getting experience on the job is getting it from study. I think It’s not the fault of either Labour or National but of the current youth generation and the adults that are advising them. If my son was under 20, not working and not studying I’d beat him Red and Blue. Deservedly so. There are shortages for entry level skiled staff everywhere, look at the aged care sector for example. But you can’t just walk off the street into one of those jobs, you need to study something hard and at times boring.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Fisiani (996 comments) says:

    Anyone have the ability to graph the rise in youth unemployment over the last decade . The picture would tell the story. BLAME LABOUR.
    Labour always do what is best for Labour even when it is bad for New Zealand
    Labour always do what is best for Labour even when it is bad for New Zealand
    Labour always do what is best for Labour even when it is bad for New Zealand
    Labour always do what is best for Labour even when it is bad for New Zealand

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    mb,

    I don’t know how good you are with labour economics, but i can assure you, you’re always going to have that level of youth unemployment in a deregulated labour market.

    I can’t begin imagine what’s going on inside your little head when you invent the nonsense you spout here, but for your information the evidence is quite to the contrary.

    “Tight labour market regulation increases unemployment all over the world, finds a study of 73 countries by the University of Bath.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090317095020.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. lastmanstanding (1,241 comments) says:

    Please forgive any threadjacking but TV1 Close up Poll 40k results 19% YES 81% NO that Maori should have any special place in NZ.

    Think that says it all

    However we must consider

    1. TVNZ filtered all calls so only white Anglo Saxon property owning males who voted ACT ay every election since 1996 were allowed to record a No vote

    2. As with the 1999 referendum on increased penalities for serious crime as Jimbo Anderton said at the time ‘They didnt understand the question.

    3. DonBrash and ACT have infilrated the teleco networks so that only those in #1 above were able to record a NO vote.

    Given tha numbers of all party pollies who answered YES to the question before the poll we may have a constitutional crisis.

    Maybe the bulk of pollies are out of touch with the citizens on a fundmental issue and so how many other issues are they out of touch?

    Och!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    ” I think It’s not the fault of either Labour or National but of the current youth generation and the adults that are advising them”

    It’s the same in every country that has a deregulated labour market. There is simply more demand for skilled labour. I think it’s a dereliction of duty to one’s countrymen to lay the fault of so many of our social problems, at the feet of those adults with the least life experience. The right never used to be so careless about our young people. For 60 odd years they endorsed a compulsory apprenticeships scheme for trades businesses. Now we have a chronic skills shortage in the trades, and high youth unemployment. The sad fact is that most of the young people you scorn so readily have given up on themselves, because they feel like the wider community has given up on them. There is the crux of the problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. lastmanstanding (1,241 comments) says:

    Seems weare a tipping point and as history shows it is a relatively minor matter (Hone leaving the MP) that has caused the tipping point.

    IMHO ACT will now get the party vote of significant numbers of Nat and Labour and those who would have voted party vote NZF.

    Donnys 15% may be conservative.

    Think back to 2004 and the events since. Increasing funds to Maori No results.Increasing political powers (think AK Council)

    Maori leadership have failed to execute a step change DESPITE the BILLIONS given to them.

    Now the silent majority have had enough and are prepared to stand up and say so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Viking2 (11,283 comments) says:

    ch123 (95) Says:
    May 5th, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    “You have a problem with the dole?
    If we offer a social security net then back it up. Clarify the boundaries at the outset and then fulfill the obligations our government and we as taxpayers enter into.”

    I have a problem with the dole for 15 to 19 year olds who haven’t had enough education to get themselves a job.

    ch123. You obviously have no clue how a labour market works.
    These people are not unemplyed because of lack of education. They are unemployed because the work that is available for people them is in a learning situation to increase that education.
    The problem with you f–k wits is that you think that learning only gets done at school.

    WRONG WRONG and WRONG.

    Learning is life long and people learn best and most about the things they are passionate about.
    School doesn’t make anyone passionate about fuckall.

    Work for many many people does.

    Plenty of school dropouts out perform the educated. Plenty of educated fools out there.( more than a few frequent here with their socialist ideals. Ideals that are always at someone else’s expense.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    The other thing that I find frustrating is that 15-19 is the only and best time available for education in a persons life.

    What is wrong for those people to work for a few years and enter training in their 20′s?

    Again, stop trying to make other peoples decisions for them, it is impossible for the smartest people in any room to do it as well as individuals on their own can.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    LMS

    “Donnys 15% may be conservative.”

    Can you please show up here when the votes are in, and repeat that again?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Viking2 (11,283 comments) says:

    magic bullet (638) Says:
    May 5th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
    The sad fact is that most of the young people you scorn so readily have given up on themselves, because they feel like the wider community has given up on them. There is the crux of the problem.

    What a bucket load of unmitigated dribble. The wider community you are talking about are their fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers Coussies, friends and so on. They haven’t given up they have been beaten up by successive socialist trolls and bullies in Govt. to the point where they are now so controlled by Law that there is no way in which they can excersize their natural instincts to nurture young people.
    The govt. won’t allow it

    There’s an idiot born to socialism every minute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    Please forgive any threadjacking but TV1 Close up Poll “Maori should have any special place in NZ.” 40k results 19% YES

    This is a terrible and distressing result. To have 20% of a country advocating apartheid is the brink of disaster.

    Hopefully I can dismiss it as unscientific for now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Chuck Bird (4,773 comments) says:

    Do we think Roger Douglas being involved makes it more or less likely that National will take action?

    Is the Pope a Catholic?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    “Tight labour market regulation increases unemployment all over the world”

    So you’re trying to tell me that a compulsory apprenticeships scheme would increase youth unemployment? Really? Are you on crack?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. ch123 (589 comments) says:

    Viking, I hated school and yet was an academic, but I wanted out asap. I agree with you that for some/many people leaving school and entering the workforce is a good thing. But leaving school to go on the dole is a bad thing. Why leave school if you can’t get work? Again, I fully support taxpayer paid programs to help people with the training need if school is not for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Chuck Bird (4,773 comments) says:

    Ryan, some jobs don’t exist currently, but would exist at $10 / hour. You’re assuming a zero sum total of jobs

    Like making poppies. It is absolutely disgusting that intellectually handicapped have been put out of work by left wing ideologues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. James (1,338 comments) says:

    LMS…go tell this to the hand wringing bed-wetters at the Dimpost…the poor dears are shocked at the idea espoused by “racists” like me and Brash that we,the forgotten third party to the treaty (the ones who get hit up to pay off the damn thing),have had enough of their apartheid politics and ain’t gonna take it (or give it as the case may be) anymore.

    http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/why-brash-is-a-racist#comments

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. nasska (10,917 comments) says:

    magic bullet @ 8.32pm

    …”For 60 odd years they endorsed a compulsory apprenticeships scheme for trades businesses. Now we have a chronic skills shortage in the trades, and high youth unemployment. “…

    In this I have to agree. I’ve never seen the logic in the dismantling of the old apprenticeships scheme. Effectively it deprived NZ of a whole generation of tradesmen & drove many students to obtain unnecessary degrees & diplomas just to find work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. ch123 (589 comments) says:

    Oh and I should add, I hope you don’t think I am a socialist. I am most certainly not…

    And agreed, learning (should) never stop. There’s barely a day that goes by that I don’t learn something new in my field, and I’ve been in it for 14 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    ch123 (96) Says:
    May 5th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
    Viking, I hated school and yet was an academic, but I wanted out asap. I agree with you that for some/many people leaving school and entering the workforce is a good thing. But leaving school to go on the dole is a bad thing. Why leave school if you can’t get work? Again, I fully support taxpayer paid programs to help people with the training need if school is not for them.

    I would limit the dole to people who have paid at least $3,000 through PAYE, and I would limit the total amount of weeks it is available to you throughout your lifetime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. ch123 (589 comments) says:

    “Plenty of school dropouts out perform the educated”

    I would hazard a guess it’s because they’re actually smarter than the educated. Smarts and education are not the same thing :) I only went to university (after doing bursary in 6th form) because what I wanted to do was travel and see the world, but I knew I was far to immature to do that.

    So I went to uni and studied what interested me while I grew up, without all that authoritarian shit that happens at boy’s high schools. Then when I had grown up a bit more I went and travelled. Not to say that I was really all that grown up at 20. I don’t think I could claim that until I’d run a business that employed quite a few people over the years and all the stresses that are involved in that.

    Oh hey, I do know something about the labour market too…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    mb,

    The sad fact is that most of the young people you scorn so readily have given up on themselves, because they feel like the wider community has given up on them. There is the crux of the problem.

    Your complete ignorance of economics might be excusable, but I’m afraid your nauseating display of piety is not.

    Really, get over yourself.

    Europe is famous both for its highly regulated job markets and its equally and permanently high unemployment, whereas the United States with its less regulated job market typically has significantly lower unemployment.

    Please stop talking crap and making everyone feel ill with your self-indulgence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. James (1,338 comments) says:

    The crux of the issue is….it ain’t the business of Government to bugger about in the economy or employment arrangements. If they pissed off out of it the market would find its natural balance…..bosses and workers backed by non state-force backed unions would have to negotiate to arrive at a mutually agreeable compromise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. reid (16,111 comments) says:

    I would limit the total amount of weeks it is available to you throughout your lifetime.

    I seem to recall Sonny some talk of five years being the figure in mind. Hopefully we’ll hear about it for this year’s election platform.

    Look some people are ill not just physically but also mentally and simply can’t work. They just can’t. However with respect to the mental illness category I hear lots of anecdotes about otherwise healthy people simply turning up to the doctor and looking sad and bang, another six months or whatever worth of sickness benefit due to depression.

    OTOH, there are lots of genuinely depressed people as well and imagine how devastating it would be for those genuine ones to be mistakenly lumped in with the lead-swingers.

    That’s one of the issues surrounding the wider problem of Liarbore’s policy of encouraging by lax rules people to shift from the dole to the sickness benefit simply to give the illusion to their useful idiot supporters such as mb that they really were tackling unemployment.

    Have a look at the stats during Hulun’s reign if you doubt that, mb.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. ch123 (589 comments) says:

    “Look some people are ill not just physically but also mentally and simply can’t work. They just can’t.”

    Which is of course the problem with a hard and fast X weeks on the bene and we cut you off idea. I don’t like benefits at all, but what happens to people when they can’t get them any more? No income. No job. What next?

    “That’s one of the issues surrounding the wider problem of Liarbore’s policy of encouraging by lax rules people to shift from the dole to the sickness benefit ”

    I always assumed they did that to try and make out that unemployment had dropped. Oh wait, you already said that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. immigant (950 comments) says:

    The sad fact is that most of the young people you scorn so readily have given up on themselves, because they feel like the wider community has given up on them. There is the crux of the problem.

    Oh please, the poor youth need to harden up. Immigrants twice their age come to NZ not speaking any English and find work but our own young, having the support of the local community and being native to the country m and having a local education can’t find the jobs that the immigrants do. How has the community given up on them?

    While some people are having a sook about how hard done they are, others are just muscling them out of life.
    God helps those who help themselves. NZ doesn’t have a problem with circumstances as with the people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    Government involvement of any kind in education and training is the third biggest threat to our country, after government controlled food production and government controlled housing supply.

    The government should offer financial assistance in the form of accessable loans to students, but should have no involvement with teachers and suppliers. The institutions receiving payment via educational loans need to be chosen by the student not the government.

    We are half the country we could be because we have allowed our schooling to fall into public hands. The overall result of 10 years of public schooling for our youth is a joke when measured alongside reasonable expectations of human potential. The marketplace considers them practically useless without 3 years of actual education afterwards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. reid (16,111 comments) says:

    Which is of course the problem with a hard and fast X weeks on the bene and we cut you off idea.

    No it’s not a problem ch123 since this policy would apply to the dole but not to the sickness benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. ch123 (589 comments) says:

    @reid Well that makes sense then. I still have a problem with what happens when your time runs out and there’s no income at all. And remember, I don’t like dishing money out to people if it can be helped. But I also don’t want to see people destitute.

    Me, I’m a freelancer these days (have been since 2003), so if I don’t work, I don’t earn. And bugger me, but the company who I thought was the golden goose doesn’t need me anymore, so I have to find work elsewhere. But I’ll find it because I don’t expect other people (a.k.a. the taxpayer) to pay me for not doing work when I can find paid work myself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. lastmanstanding (1,241 comments) says:

    The people have spoken and 81% want an end to apartheid in NZ as promoted by every Government since Norm Kirks,

    Face it folks the music has stopped on the great Maori gravy train and the BILLIONS that has been given to self interest groups over the past 40 years that has produced NO benefits to 99% of Maori people.

    They have been used as voter fodder by the LEFT to advance their cause.

    Maori people should be rising up in the streets and marching on the Parliament and their so called leaders and demanding why the money has not been used to benefit the Maori people.

    Whitey has colluded in a great scam for 40 years to enrich a few Maori and pretend Maori ( the ones who wear the tiki but are white).

    All NZers have let down the Maori people by allowing the scams of the government and the few

    You should be ashamed of yourselves.

    You have betrayed the real Maori people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. ch123 (589 comments) says:

    “Government involvement of any kind in education and training is the third biggest threat to our country”

    So are you saying you don’t think primary, intermediate and secondary education should be paid for by the government / taxpayer?

    “We are half the country we could be because we have allowed our schooling to fall into public hands.”

    Funny, but I was under the impression that our schools had always been in public hands.

    If you mean tertiary level then you should say so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. reid (16,111 comments) says:

    I still have a problem with what happens when your time runs out and there’s no income at all. And remember, I don’t like dishing money out to people if it can be helped. But I also don’t want to see people destitute.

    That bothers me as well ch123. I’ve always thought the US policy is very harsh, this is softer but you’re right, what happens when it runs out.

    Still, an open-ended agreement to pay pricks like Mr Harris from ChCh for the rest of his natural life, or philu for that matter, doesn’t appeal either.

    There are probably better solutions, but I think it’s important at least to start down this road, to send the signal that healthy, able people who simply can’t be arsed, won’t be supported.

    It’s taken us as a society a fuck of a long time to arrive at this, far too long. You woulda thought we could have done it soon after the moon landing but apparently that was easy compared to this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. ch123 (589 comments) says:

    Sending a man to the moon is a lot easier than trying to sort out society’s problems. You literally can throw money at sending a man to the moon. As we’ve seen, sorting out society’s problems isn’t that easy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. reid (16,111 comments) says:

    So it would appear but not sure why since science has the solution, it’s just the will to apply it, which gets overturned by the next govt not because it’s not the best answer to date, but simply for ideological reasons.

    The benevolent dictatorship model is the best form of govt and would solve the plague of welfarism for good provided it was both a dictatorship and benevolent, trouble is, when it’s a dictatorship it’s rarely benevolent but that doesn’t make the logic wrong, it simply points to the flawed nature of we humans who can’t apparently co-operate for more than 5 mins but would rather fight, whether physically or intellectually.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    I suppose it would be stating the obvious to say that rising unemployment coincided with the global market and a move to monetarism.

    As for those who claim the lower unemployment that occurred under Labour was because of a transfer to the SB (and IB) – the combined total on all three benefits was lower by near 100,000.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. ch123 (589 comments) says:

    I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there.

    I think the main problem with NZ at the moment is that neither of the two main political parties are actually thinking about the long term good for our country; there’s far too much silly political fighting and point scoring in order to get short term votes and power.

    Why is neither party addressing the aging population, and where the money is going to come from to support them? Why are they not looking at youth unemployment (to refer back to what this particular post’s thread is supposed to be about) and seeing the long term consequences of it? Where is the leadership and long term thinking?

    I know that trying to deal with these issues and the solutions required may well be political suicide, but they need to at least try to work together to work out a long term solution that both parties can work with. And leave the fine tune tinkering until later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. reid (16,111 comments) says:

    As for those who claim the lower unemployment that occurred under Labour was because of a transfer to the SB (and IB) – the combined total on all three benefits was lower by near 100,000.

    I do claim that SPC and the 100,000 less was because of the GLOBAL conditions which Liarbore enjoyed not because of anything particular it did.

    Indeed it wasted the opportunity.

    If you doubt that, then how come things turned turtle so very quickly immediately the GLOBAL party ended? See if Liarbore was truly not simply surfing the wave but was actually emplacing wise structural changes which would have legs, how come those legs haven’t appeared? (Try not to claim it is the Nat’s fault, cause the facade had already started to crumble as the Nats took office and if there any structural integrity in Liarbore’s none years, it would have held up, but it hasn’t, has it. Instead, we are left with a legacy of profligacy based on Liarbore’s assumption the good times would roll forever. Always the fools domain. Just that the ones who suffer aren’t the fools who implemented it.)

    I suppose it would be stating the obvious to say that rising unemployment coincided with the global market and a move to monetarism.

    Yes that is rather obvious SPC but what did Liarbore do in its nine long years to reverse any of that, at all, in anyway whatsoever? What’s that? Nothing? That’s right. They did nothing. Despite loudly and longly proclaiming their propaganda meme of the “failed policies of the 90′s” which their idiot supporters loudly cheered all the while ignoring the clear and present fact that even while Liarbore was saying that it was doing absolutely zero that’s right, nothing at all, to reverse it. And these idiots continued to vote for these “traitors,” didn’t they. What’s that? They weren’t traitors? But you just said they should have done something about it, and they didn’t. Make up your mind, SPC.

    So is “the global market and a move to monetarism” a good thing since Liarbore supported it, or a bad thing, since it causes unemployment?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    reid, whether it was anything Labour did or not is irrelevant, you said the fall in unemployment only occurred because of a transfer to SB. If the total number on UB SB and IB and DPB was 100,00 less then your claim was not true.

    Your claim that Labour operated under the assumption that the good times would roll on is not borne out by Cullen’s reluctance to cut taxes – he cited the lack of a structural surplus across the economic cycle.

    As to the global market and monetarism being behind our higher unemployment (and in other countries too) that is clearly the case. Now we are left with the idea that 3-4% unemployment is full employment and if it gets any higher then inflation occurs – thus we have permanent unemployment and thus welfare dependency. Once this occurs then there are long term beneficiaries.

    As to your attempt to politicise the issue – what’s the point – evade both the facts and depart from the topic?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. noskire (835 comments) says:

    Reid, you deserve a regular spot in The Herald.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    I still have a problem with what happens when your time runs out and there’s no income at all. And remember, I don’t like dishing money out to people if it can be helped. But I also don’t want to see people destitute.

    You give them food, shelter, security, and medicine. But not money, perhaps $50 per week spending money.

    If they don’t want what is offered then their family and community is welcome to provide for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    ch123 (103) Says:
    May 5th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
    “Government involvement of any kind in education and training is the third biggest threat to our country”

    So are you saying you don’t think primary, intermediate and secondary education should be paid for by the government / taxpayer?

    “We are half the country we could be because we have allowed our schooling to fall into public hands.”

    Funny, but I was under the impression that our schools had always been in public hands.

    If you mean tertiary level then you should say so.

    I mean all of it.

    We have been educating our youth for tens of thousands of years. We have had public schools for a few hundred.

    You have to think why we do this, it is because we want our poorer people to have the opportunity to fufill their potential. You need to realise that this is a financial issue, not an educational one.

    Ensure there are affordable government educational loans and provide a minimum income for poorer families so that they can make their own choices on education, food, housing, and health. But don’t make those choices for everyone to attempt to address a different problem for some of them.

    A minimum income should be fluid with the dole and is why you don’t need a minimum wage. But it also needs to be time limited throughout your lifetime. It would have to be set at something like $40,000 and taxes would be a fraction of what they are now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    As to the global market and monetarism being behind our higher unemployment (and in other countries too) that is clearly the case. Now we are left with the idea that 3-4% unemployment is full employment and if it gets any higher then inflation occurs – thus we have permanent unemployment and thus welfare dependency. Once this occurs then there are long term beneficiaries.

    As to your attempt to politicise the issue – what’s the point – evade both the facts and depart from the topic?

    The only long term welfare dependancy in those times were from people unwilling or unable to work.

    I was an employer at the bottom end of the market then employing no skilled workers and it was bloody hard to get staff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    The benevolent dictatorship model is the best form of govt and would solve the plague of welfarism for good provided it was both a dictatorship and benevolent, trouble is, when it’s a dictatorship it’s rarely benevolent but that doesn’t make the logic wrong, it simply points to the flawed nature of we humans who can’t apparently co-operate for more than 5 mins but would rather fight, whether physically or intellectually.

    A benevolent dictatorship cannot work because knowledge is dispersed. No person or group is even a fraction smart enough to do it.

    You just need an effective constituion that includes strict limits to the size, spending, and function of government and its laws. And a legal system capable of enforcing it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    Now we are left with the idea that 3-4% unemployment is full employment

    Well it is. But that 3-4% is not the same people. It’s always being churned. It is the antithesis of structural long-term unemployment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    Well given there were only 20,000 people in the country on the dole being work tested at one point (there are others counted as unemployed but not on the dole being work tested) there would have been a struggle to find workers in some areas of the country – yet as this this impacts on wage levels in the market the interest rates go up so this period cannot last.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    wat we never used to call 3-4% unemployment full employment – partly that’s because we did not have the churn, people stayed in jobs or went straight into new ones.

    But even with the 1-2% churn there is continuing long term unemployment and given some of it ends up on SB and IB this is an on-going problem across decades now. Poverty on unemployment results in work incapacity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    Sonny, it’s not cheap providing for need on an ad hoc basis. Benefits are paid because it’s more efficient.

    And many recipients would get more money than they do now – few have $50 left for discretionary spending. I doubt government wants to know what it actually costs people to live.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    I just picked $50 so I don’t look like a tight arsehole and it looks right in future scenarios. You do need to keep people somewhat occupied and out of trouble. But again I think they will be quite capable of raising some spending money from the community. There would be vigorous charitable activity in a society with a less overwhelming social welfare blanket.

    I’m talking about having people come in live in shelters, I don’t mean it to be the cheapest option but the healthiest in terms of balancing incentives with needs. It needs to be a situation with a string motivation to avoid for people that enjoy their independence and freedom.

    I don’t think the total cost of long term welfare abusers is at all significant in economic terms, but the dehumanisation, reduced incentives, and lack of urgency and fear of consequences in peoples choices is a significant cost.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    And I think people at that level of exhausting their lifetime unemployment benefit and are not on a sickness benefit have forfeited the responsibility and do not have the capability of managing a budget.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. cha (3,856 comments) says:

    In this I have to agree. I’ve never seen the logic in the dismantling of the old apprenticeships scheme. Effectively it deprived NZ of a whole generation of tradesmen & drove many students to obtain unnecessary degrees & diplomas just to find work.

    The apprenticeships were never dismantled and with private enterprise training less the 10% of apprentices and leaving it up to the government and local bodies to train and supply most of their new employee tradesmen the reforms of the eighties managed to throw the baby out with the bath water.

    Here in my home burg the NZR, MOW, NZED, NZBC, P&T and local bodies all had large apprenticeship schemes and the revolving door policies supplied 50+ newly qualified tradesmen every year ranging from boilermakers from NZR to plumbers and drain layers trained by the city council.

    There were two county councils in the region who trained diesel mechanics and the odd carpenter and the power
    board supplied one or two electricians to local businesses every year.

    All was well and good for a few years as the mass redundancies released a large number of trade trained prospective employees but the local economy contracted and a lot of trained workers chucked their trades in and went and did something else.
    So by the mid to late nineties the numbers of trade trained workers available was dropping and the writing was on the wall and even though the ITOs had been formed it was too little too late.

    And here we are, a skills shortage, youth employment at all time lows and paying through the nose to get anything done.

    Anecdotally, I’ve heard about SE Asian construction workers coming into the country on visitors permits, living on site and rotating out to be replaced when their permits expired. Housing and light commercial built at $650/sqm so I’ve heard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Gwilly (156 comments) says:

    Real unemployment is probably about 10-12pct.

    Youth unemployment (15-17 yr olds) should be zero – they should be at school.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    Sonny surviving on a benefit is not proof of an inability ot budget, maybe a lack of expectation or ambition, but not that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. mpledger (429 comments) says:

    There is an interesting article about youth unemployment here. An interesting point is how youth unemployment is a problem in a lot of Western countries.

    Failure to Launch
    by Gordon Campbell
    http://werewolf.co.nz/2011/03/failure-to-launch/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    SPC (893) Says:
    May 6th, 2011 at 8:37 am
    Sonny surviving on a benefit is not proof of an inability ot budget, maybe a lack of expectation or ambition, but not that.

    Yes it is. Not the budget each week, but the budget of benefits through your lifetime. If you used up all the weeks available to you without managing to maintain a working life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    Remove minimum wage and offer a gauranteed minimum income from the government and apprentice schemes can flourish if the industry requires them.

    Allocation of labour in this manner shouldn’t have anything to do with government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. questlove (242 comments) says:

    “Youth unemployment has now hit 27 percent for those aged 15-19;”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the youth rate only apply to people aged 16 and 17? It seems using the 15-19 age group isn’t that useful in determining whether ensuring 16 & 17 year-olds get the adult minimum wage actually affected their employment prospects.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Ryan Sproull (7,060 comments) says:

    You give them food, shelter, security, and medicine. But not money, perhaps $50 per week spending money.

    If they don’t want what is offered then their family and community is welcome to provide for them.

    I am inclined to agree with you, Sonny, though the costs of administering this more complicated system would have to be compared against the costs of some beneficiaries squandering their benefits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Sonny Blount (1,847 comments) says:

    I think very few people would let it get to that Ryan. It would be a trivial cost in the greater scheme of things.

    Even if you give people a very generous length of time they can takje advantage of the dole, the awareness that there is an end to it would motivate people to do something about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. freedom101 (481 comments) says:

    Funny that DPF did not mention that National had recently voted AGAINST a bill to reinstate youth pay rates. Could this be because the bill was introduced by that extremist Roger Douglas? I guess that given the general smile and wave state of the National Party anything that actually achieves something is by definition extreme.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    Good point freedom 101- I actually 100% agree with DPF about youth rates-they should be reintroduced straight away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    A 16 year old generally has no skills, no experience and lives at home.

    Sort of like a 30 year-old Australian?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    “Oh please, the poor youth need to harden up.”

    oh yes, and do you think that that all our youth that are choosing in droves to opt out with suicide wouldn’t have preferred to “harden up”? There is a profound emotional/spiritual sickness amongst our youth – and it has to do with being/feeling left out of society. I see it every day.

    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.