Stop pricing young workers out of the labour force
June 13th, 2011 at 7:00 am by David FarrarEric Crampton’s op ed in the Dominion Post, and online at CIS is very good.
IF THE Government said that the minimum price for a new car were $50, nobody would expect it to affect sales. Neither would an increase to $65. But it would certainly start mattering if the Government applied a minimum price of $5000 to all cars, new and used.
Exactly. Only the stupidest person could argue that a mimimum price would not affect sales at certain levels. Hence the focus should be about at what level it starts to matter.
The latest youth unemployment figures are very bad. The unemployment rate for kids aged 15 to 19 is 27.5 per cent …
This isn’t just the recession. Unemployment rates for adults are higher than they were in the boom of the mid 2000s, but the recent downturn has not hit adult workers the same way that it’s hit the kids. The current adult unemployment rate of 6.6 per cent is only three points higher than its low mark in the mid 2000s. Meanwhile, youth unemployment rates are a staggering 15 points higher.
So what changed?
Both rates usually track each other, reflecting the overall strength of the labour market. Changes in the adult unemployment rate explain a high proportion of changes in the youth rate.
But in late 2008, this relationship began to break down. Compared with a previous trend, the current youth unemployment rate is eight points higher than we could have expected given the adult unemployment rate. That’s about 12,000 kids who, given the current adult unemployment rate, we would have expected to have jobs. …
Neither can they simply be due to the current downturn: when adult unemployment hit 10.2 per cent in 1992, the youth unemployment rate was 23.4 per cent – three points lower than today – and youth labour force participation rates were higher. Bear in mind that adult unemployment today is nowhere near 10.2 per cent.
The answer seems obvious. While done with good intentions, the abolition of a lower minimim wage rate for teenagers has priced them out of the labour market.
No, the sharp increase in youth unemployment from late 2008 appears to have been caused by the abolition of the youth minimum wage in early 2008. Such a result isn’t surprising. Economist Stephen Gordon summarised Pierre Fortin’s work on this effect in relation to minimum wages: when minimum wages are below about 45 per cent of the average wage, they have little effect on employment; above that, they present a danger to employment.
By contrast, New Zealand’s minimum wage of $13 an hour is about 50 per cent of the average hourly wage – well into the range in which we expect negative employment effects, particularly for young workers.
And if the minimum wage increased to $15/hr, it would impact youth even harder.
Reinstating a youth minimum wage well below the adult rate wouldn’t eliminate youth unemployment. But it would let employers start creating new jobs that young workers could productively fill while gaining experience. It’s time to stop pricing young workers out of the labour force.
I agree. What the Government should do is freeze the youth minimum wage at $13/hr and keep it there until it has hit the floor of 80% of the adult minimum wage (which happens when it hits $16.25), and then have it remain at 80%.
Related posts:
- Youth Rates and Youth Unemployment
- Jim should back bringing back the youth minimum wage
- And the winners are
- Youth Unemployment
June 13th, 2011 at 7:36 am
DPF: I agree. What the Government should do is freeze the youth minimum wage at $13/hr and keep it there until it has hit the floor of 80% of the adult minimum wage
The National Party for you folks: DPF’s advice to the unemployed youth is: bugger off. The National Party won’t do anything. That’s bad for the popularity of John Key and secondly John is simply to busy borrowing money to avoid having to make choices.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 7:44 am
NO cut the youth rate to about $12/hr and allow the adult minimum rate to rise. And cut the holiday rate for youth back to 3 weeks and drop kiwi saver as well. Adult rates and benefits to kick in at aged 20. Some of this can be reviewed when youth unemployment gets into single digits. These are MINIMUM conditions. Existing conditions can be grandfathered though I suppose some employers will fire employees to get cheaper wages. But only for low productivity workers.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 7:52 am
Contrary to the thrust of the article, the relationship between minimum wages and unemployment is not clear-cut – it seems that the labour market is a bit more complicated than that. We should take reports from the Centre for (so-called) Independent Studies with a grain of salt. Other current reports from CIS include a denial that ‘restrictions on access, availability and price of alcohol will have positive social outcomes’ and warning of the ‘dangers of campaign finance reform’.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 8:09 am
I can’t understand this affection for the minimum wage. It has no effect when it is set at equilibrium or below. And when it is set above equilibrium, it causes unemployment. So what’s the point?
How can you people deny a young person the opportunity to do honest work for $8 an hour? Why is it better for him to vegetate on the unemployment benefit at $5 per hour?
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 8:28 am
I have posted the following message on Kiwiblog in one of the threads a few weeks ago and I’m re-pasting it here again as it is relevant.
It is a must read for Darien Fenton and Jacinda ardern of Labour, Union members and also uninformed lefties such as Tapu Misa and the likes. Prof Neumark (author of the paper below) has done extensive empirical researches on the topic of Minimum Wages over the last 2 decades.
Abstract:
——————–
We review the burgeoning literature on the employment effects of minimum wages – in the United States and other countries – that was spurred by the new minimum wage research beginning in the early 1990s. Our review indicates that there is a wide range of existing estimates and, accordingly, a lack of consensus about the overall effects on low-wage employment of an increase in the minimum wage. However, the oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect. A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries. Two other important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few – if any – studies that provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow industry) for which the competitive model predicts disemployment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.
Download a PDF Copy : Minimum Wages and Employment (click on download link at the top of the page)
Prof. David Neumark (and William L. Wascher ) have published a book, with a title “Minimum Wages“, which is available at Amazon.
PS : I became first aware of D. Neumark’s work on Mimimum Wages, by reading an article on Eric Crampton’s blog ( about 2 or so years ago).
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 8:39 am
Yes, the same Labour lite government who did this:
Vote:http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/youth-wage-rate-bill-defeated-parliament-121853
June 13th, 2011 at 8:42 am
The only reason for a minimum wage that I can see is to stop people being taken advantage of. Unless someone has another reason for it, there is no reason it should be so high. I think it has been pushed by unions wanting better pay for their members.
It seems that the people who push for and raised the minimum wage did not understand basic economics, as this is exactly what is covered by level 600 economics papers.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 8:51 am
Correct there Manolo, National has no guts to do what is right.
Sir Roger Douglas understands the damaging effect of minimum wages than anyone in Parliament.
Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill – First Reading
As Sir Roger said on that video in the debate, that we should be ashamed of ourselves.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:06 am
The point is to create wonderful wedge issues, with the left on one side as the compassionate carers and the right as people who rejoice in grinding the poor further into the dirt.
Remember, as long as you say you care for the poor and oppressed you can do almost anything – including screwing over the poor and oppressed in non-obvious ways.
Politics 101.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:06 am
Further to Falafulu Fisi, here’s a similar report I posted the other week (as requested by vto, who went all silent)
Vote:————————–
check out this report which is a survey of 17 OECD countries:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2003/200323/200323pap.pdf
June 13th, 2011 at 9:11 am
Why isn’t National acting on this?
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:13 am
Because Labour lite does not have the political courage (read balls). Smiling and waving is easier.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:16 am
I’d rather see a cap on the maximum wage for corporate execs. There is no sane reason why someone needs to be paid an insane amount of money to do the sort of work they do. What the government should do is freeze the maximum earnings an individual can make at four and a half times what the lowest person makes in any organisation and adjust according to how many financial dependents the person has, inclusive of their extended family.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:17 am
marynicolehicks says: The only reason for a minimum wage that I can see is to stop people being taken advantage of.
I don’t understand. How exactly are people being taken advantage of when there isn’t a minimum wage? We don’t have indentured servitude in this country. If the wage offered is too low, the worker refuses the offer. He doesn’t need the government forbidding him from accepting it.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:19 am
Queenstfarmer, yes I’ve read that paper (by same authors David Neumark and William L. Wascher). That paper was published in 2003. They used GMM (Generalized Method of Moments) in their analysis, which is a more robust method compared to other methods being used (including time-series analysis) in previous study prior to their paper.
The review on minimum wages by David Neumark and William Wascher I have cited in my previous message was published in 2008 (more recent).
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:26 am
“Black with a Vengeance” says: I’d rather see a cap on the maximum wage for corporate execs.
Why stop there? Put the same cap on movie stars and sports stars. And what about rich people in general? Why should Bill Gates have all that money? Let him keep a million and give the rest to the poor.
And while we are at it, the cost of petrol is way too high. Put a cap on that too: $1 a litre sounds good. Same for milk: $1 a pint. Tomatoes: $1 a kilo. Come on all you socialists, let’s make this happen!
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:33 am
While economic opinion is not as clear as some posts above suggest; I think there is a tendency to only look at an economic analyses of the effects of a minimum wage.
A minimum wage is best viewed as a question of rights. We can easily understand minimum conditions when they are applied to health and safety, restrictions on working time, anti-discrimination and the like. I do not hear people calling for health and safety laws to be abolished on the grounds that an employee should be free to choose to work in unsafe conditions. I do not see people arguing that workers should be free to take jobs for 12 hours a day with no breaks. What is the difference?
As for youth minimum rates, this is just a form of age discrimination. If an employeeis capable, what is the reason for paying a lesser wage simply on the basis of age?
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:34 am
What the Government should do is freeze the youth minimum wage at $13/hr and keep it there until it has hit the floor of 80% of the adult minimum wage (which happens when it hits $16.25), and then have it remain at 80%.
Why? The main effect of that rule will be to continue pricing some people out of the market. Those most detrimentally affected will be the most disadvantaged and the least skilled.
Name a single part of the argument against a youth rate at 100% that does not apply at 80%.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:34 am
C’mon bro, what are you waiting for? Export yourself to North Korea, worker’s paradise.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:40 am
I do not hear people calling for health and safety laws to be abolished on the grounds that an employee should be free to choose to work in unsafe conditions. I do not see people arguing that workers should be free to take jobs for 12 hours a day with no breaks. What is the difference?
I’ll argue that. So will many others. People frequently choose a job that requires working 12 hours a day without breaks. It is called running a startup or a small business. People frequently choose to work in unsafe conditions, like working mines or oil rigs. And research shows wages are substantially higher in those higher risk occupations. Health and safety laws that deprive people of the right to choose those types of occupations make the world a worse place.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:45 am
Put the same cap on movie stars and sports stars. And what about rich people in general? Why should Bill Gates have all that money? Let him keep a million and give the rest to the poor.
________________________________________________________________________________
Agreed, except Bill Gates should give the rest away as no interest loans and start up capital for poor people with good ideas to create new businesses.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:52 am
ben
Are you suggesting that health and safety laws do not apply in mines or on oil rigs?
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:56 am
mikenmild – no I’m not saying that. I am saying people should be free to choose to work in unsafe conditions. Health and safety laws which have the effect of preventing them doing so i.e. are binding, should be abolished. I work in a place that is subject to ludicrous amounts of health and safety red tape, thankfully it has not taken away my opportunity to work here. Were that red tape so oppressive as to prevent me choosing to working here, then that red tape should be eliminated.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 10:08 am
ben
Your argument is a bit hard to follow. Are you saying that safety regulations are ok so long as you agree with them? This would imply that where rules conflict with individual preferences, the rules should be abandoned. Would this apply to helmets for motorcyclists, hard hats and ear defenders for construction workers?
Anyway, health and safety is but one example of an area where we impose minimum standards without the fuss that is raised about their economic effect. I still think this is more an argument about human rights than economic consequences (uncertain as those might be).
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 10:10 am
Tanned with a shitty attitude says: “I’d rather see a cap on the maximum wage for corporate execs.”
Typical politics of envy from a typical, hate filled socialist. Raise taxes for those who get off their butt and earn executive level salaries, so electoral bribes can be passed on to society’s bludgers.
Here’s a hint: Rather then festering in your own bowl of envy, why not get off your arse, get an education, do the hard yards at entry level, be prepared to work the long hours necessary to prove your worth to a Company, earn yourself promotions and one day you may be able to work your way through management to the stage where you can command an executive salary of your own.
No? Not for you? Sounds too much like hard work?
Gee – why am I surprised?
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 10:22 am
The concept of a maximum pay is impractical (even if it wasn’t repugnant). Consider the case of a company/sports team owner. Great for them to have staff limited to a maximum pay. Every year they pay less in wages & salaries and their company’s profitability is improved. This increases their retained earnings that can be either given back to them by way of a capital distribution, selling of shares or dividend (though this latter one may be caught by the max income track).
Even better consider the hard worker that has two jobs and chooses to spend 7-days a week working 12 hours a day for a period of time to pay off the mortgage quicker, etc. Would the max income apply to one job or total earnings?
Cheers, Chris W.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 10:43 am
Why are supposedly right wing parties advocating discriminating against young people?
A youth minimum wage is contrary to the notion of equal human rights.
The minimum wage should be removed or at least lowered for ALL New Zealanders.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 10:52 am
If an employee is capable, what is the reason for paying a lesser wage simply on the basis of age
If the employee is capable, he will be paid what he’s worth. Untill he has proven his worth, why should he be paid as much as someone who is proficient at the task?
I think wages should be a combination of two factors: 1) Where the task sits on the required skills scale, 2) How efficient the employee is. (although in some cases you can add to the mix the # of vacancies open and/or the # of aplicants for the position)
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 10:57 am
ciaron
I completely agree. Age itself is an irrelvant factor in setting wages. A youth minimum wage is plain discrimination.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 11:14 am
Elaycee wrote:
Here’s a hint: Rather then festering in your own bowl of envy, why not get off your arse, get an education, do the hard yards at entry level, be prepared to work the long hours necessary to prove your worth to a Company, earn yourself promotions and one day you may be able to work your way through management to the stage where you can command an executive salary of your own.
Or you can take a short cut to that great job
Vote:http://gawker.com/5803176/how-to-party-your-way-into-a-multi+million-dollar-facebook-job
June 13th, 2011 at 11:26 am
Age itself is an irrelvant factor in setting wages…
Well, yes and no. In my experience age and attitude are for the most part linked. That is to say someone fresh out of school will seldom have a good, solid work ethic, and more often than not be unwilling to go the extra mile.
Maybe I’ll always be swayed by the argument the boss game me when I started my apprenticeship: I’m going to pay you shit for the next four years… In return I won’t fire you when you fuck up.
And when I felt a bit down about earning shit the Foreman said: You have 3 choices; continue as you are, fuck off & do something else or get your nose to the grindstone and prove you’re worth more.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 11:28 am
ciaron and mikenmild: I think wages should be set by willing offer meets willing accepter. The end. If that is $2/hour so be it. Some people with low skills and limited experience who wish to get work experience and who are in a position to do so are prepared to accept a low wage. This should not be illegal. If exploitation is the concern, then write a law which targets exploitation, and excludes willing and able people reaching an agreement for a low wage. Low wages are an extremely poor proxy for exploitation.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 11:31 am
Youth rates that are lower than adult rates are the direct correlation of work experience, life skills and attitude to “work” as a value index.
Vote:Many adults are only worth the lower value for the same reasons.
Yes there are opportunities for exploitation but no employer who places a true value on the above factors will risk their investment in selection, training and developing trust at risk by such idiocy.
Many young successful employees will freely attest that organisations such as McDonalds, a common target for the exploitation label, gave them the confidence, discipline and marketable skills that led to success in other fields.
Next time you are in your supermarket have a gander at the demographic of the checkout teams, Many mature women who have reliability as their main attribute, they will turn up at the appointed time every time. With youth rates many school leavers will get the opportunity to prove their abilities to their potential employers and more importantly, them selves.
June 13th, 2011 at 11:35 am
Are you saying that safety regulations are ok so long as you agree with them? This would imply that where rules conflict with individual preferences, the rules should be abandoned. Would this apply to helmets for motorcyclists, hard hats and ear defenders for construction workers?
Yes. If somebody wishes to offer me a job riding a motorbike without a helmet, for some reason, it should not be against the law for them to do so or against the law for me to accept. The only reason I would accept that job is if it were the best option for me, taking account of my preferences and the jobs conditions and my circumstances. Otherwise I would not accept it. Provided the employer made conditions clear up front, and I retained the right to leave or to sue if they left important details unmentioned, then I should not expect the law to help me or that employer by banning us writing that agreement.
Yes, it is possible a law banning an agreement like that would prevent welfare-destroying agreements to be written between willing motorcyclist and willing employer, but not generally.
It will also be the case that generally health and safety laws are non-binding i.e. that dangerous jobs would simply not be made available or taken because the people aren’t willing to bear risk without compensation and because risk is simply not economic to pay for in many cases. Oil rigs and mines are an exception.
For the same reason, in the vast majority of jobs, the minimum wage is non-binding. Competition, not the law, keeps wages and standards well above the minimum.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 11:38 am
ciaron
An apprenticeship situation is markedly different from a youth minimum wage. An apprentice accepts wages based on his or her (lack of) experience and the training arrangements provided by the employer. A youth rate works on the premise that an 18-year-old and a 19-year-old are inherently worth different rates of pay. We got over this many years ago for women with equal pay legislation.
ben
A market solution is fine where basic social expectations are met. On your argument, differential pay rates could be set for women too, provided there was a willing employer and willing employee.
Some standards are simply common sense in a modern society.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 11:38 am
Pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 11:46 am
And if you want monkeys?
If you want monkeys and the government said you had to pay them the same as you would an actor in a costume (which is a lot more), how many people will hire the monkeys? Only those willing to pay more that premium for genuine monkeys.
Of course, we can see the benefit of actual monkeys over actors in monkey suits. Can you tell us what benefit there is for a young worker over and older one? Is that going to be worth the premium?
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 11:51 am
Whereas you would prefer that that willing employee stays unemployed.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 11:55 am
Kimble
Would you like to put forward an argument on that basis for abolishing all anti-discrimination provisions?
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Mikenmild:
A youth rate works on the premise that an 18-year-old and a 19-year-old are inherently worth different rates of pay.
And from my experience, that premise would be correct, remember; its a starting point, not a ceiling.
Ben:
Vote:I think wages should be set by willing offer meets willing accepter thats what I was driving at with my 10:52, but you said it much better
June 13th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Do the hard yards at entry level, be prepared to work the long hours necessary to prove your worth to a Company, earn yourself promotions and one day you may be able to work your way through management to the stage where you can command an executive salary of your own.
No? Not for you? Sounds too much like hard work?
______________________________________________________________________
Nah sounds too much like brownnosing. I’d rather be self employed and build up my own company up to state where i could maintain a comfortable lifestyle that left me time to have a life outside of work. Just because you like felching the boss doesn’t mean it’s something we should all aspire to.
But seriously, chill the fuck out dude. I’d feel ever so guilty if you keeled over from a heart attack.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
gravedodger (809) Says:
Next time you are in your supermarket have a gander at the demographic of the checkout teams, Many mature women who have reliability as their main attribute, they will turn up at the appointed time every time. With youth rates many school leavers will get the opportunity to prove their abilities to their potential employers and more importantly, them selves.
Yea, let’s ditch those older, loyal workers because these unreliable workers are cheaper.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
“But seriously, chill the fuck out dude. I’d feel ever so guilty if you keeled over from a heart attack.”
Best hope I don’t, because I suspect my tax dollars help prop up your layabout lifestyle.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
I wouldnt waste my time. Anti-discrimination law is one of those things that many people absolutely refuse to approach rationally. The best we can do is remind them of the real world consequences of the laws, and possibly get them to appreciate that just because the laws “feel good” that doesnt make them correct or worthwhile.
It might sound as if we are very black and white about this sort of stuff. (Which leads to people like you saying that we are against ALL anti-discrimination laws.) But we have learned that we must constantly point out the costs of their feel good laws to get from them even the most basic concessions to reality.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
And then the government extends their cap on executive salary, which is simply a return on human capital, to the return on all capital.
Dont worry though, I am sure your demands to limit peoples income will only ever be enforced on everyone else, and leave you completely unaffected. Just as you obviously hope, you hypocritical dick.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
You unimaginative cock.
Your turn…
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
I knew you wouldnt have anything to say about it.
Thats because you KNOW that your idea an income cap is only based on what other people earn, and would have to still be above what you want to get. You would scream bloody murder if the cap came in below your income and affected you.
You are obviously a disgustingly selfish person, which is why you dont care about youth unemployment. As long as you get yours everyone else can go hang, eh?
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
@ Kimble
Your posts contains words of more than two syllables – so it’ll be lost on Tanned with a shitty attitude. It’s clear from the rants that he / she doesn’t own a Company / has never worked in a management role / wouldn’t have a clue about working hard / has never been in a position of responsibility / most likely has a hand out for taxpayer cash.
Could be a foundation member of Hone’s MOFOs.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
I disagree Elaycee, I think that selfish twit DOES own their own business. It is obvious from the condescending attitude to anyone who works for someone else.
They are just to egocentric to recognise the hypocrisy of their position and too stupid to realise that they are themselves the very picture of the arrogant capitalist they sat they hate.
Its called projection and affects the weak-minded most of all.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Kimble
I’d be the last to deny that such things as anti-discrimination laws impose costs. For example, they might imposeon your freedom not to employ Maori or women.
My point throughout this thread is that such things as minimum wages, anti-discrimination laws and health and safety rules provide a basic guaranteed standard for all. If wewant a different arrangement, we could go much further and allow child labour or slavery as well.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
It’s clear from the rants that he…
____________________________________________________________________
Only thing clear Elaycee/L.A.C (Lacking A Clue) is that you’re a full blown idiot and your mate Kimble is jealous because he’s only half blown. Get a fucking room will ya or even better, a life worth living.
You both deserve a happy ending.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
TAB paying $1.01 on that bet.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Thats not what I am talking about. And dont try and paint me as a sexist and racist you fascist, homophobic, baby-eating cunt.
The costs are that you end up pricing people out of the market, just as we have seen with young people. If you supported the abolition of the youth wage, then there are kids unemployed today because of you. Thats the cost people try to ignore, and it is the cost we are trying to remind you all of.
I think there should be some minimum standards, with the acknowledgement of both the benefits and the costs. I refuse to allow people to carry on blissfully ignoring the costs because it makes them feel good. I think we are better off if REAL good things happen, rather than things that just ‘feel good’ for a privileged few.
You might want child labour and slavery, I sure dont, and I dont think you will get much support for those demands around here.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Could be a foundation member of Hone’s MOFOs.
_____________________________________________________________________
Or maybe a reptilian shapeshifter ? Place your bets. BANZAI !
Hold the line caller. I think we have a winner
Looks like someone forgot to take their meds.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
HHAHAHAA! You are a fucking moron! Couldnt you see what I was doing there?
Wow! You honestly think I was abusing him out of anger!
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Couldnt you see what I was doing there?
______________________________________________________________________
yeah making a right cock of yourself.
c0ngratz, u w1n teh interwebz !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
And now you realise that I wasnt just spewing anger, and you feel stupid for not seeing it earlier. Or perhaps more likely, you still dont get it, but you reckon there must be something.
In either case the classy thing would be to admit the mistake. Naturally you didnt do that.
Instead you try and act as if you are more familiar with the internet than I am. But the way you did it was so last decade as to be nothing more than a hackneyed imitation of someones granddad trying to be cool with a k.
You might as well have told everyone “the lake is a pie”.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Heh, not content to be a cock. You want to be a prize cock.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Kimble
I really am unsure why you wanted to call me a “fascist, homophobic, baby-eating cunt”.
We already price people out of the employment.market in many ways by prohibiting all sorts of discriminatory behaviour and mandating many minimum standards. Why would we want to insist that people should be paid less because of their age?
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
mikenmild said…
Why would we want to insist that people should be paid less because of their age?
mike, because the jobs don’t belong to the work’s mum or dad nor the government. It belongs to the business owner. You need to understand what is rights first, before you argue anything. Discrimination law violates individual rights. If someone hits you with a 4 by 2 timber on your head then that’s a rights violations. If an owner of a cafe doesn’t want Israelis in his/her cafe, that his/her rights. The law should not violate the owners rights in being selective in who’s going in to dine in his/her restaurant or cafe by dictating to him/her.
Same as businesses. The business owner have all the rights to his/her property and not the workers nor the potential consumers. It doesn’t mean that the law prohibits discrimination that it means that someone’s rights have been violated.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Why does NZ need a minimum wage when there’s welfare? I live in a SE Asian country with no welfare system and where a minimum wage does exist to ensure people aren’t exploited. It makes perfect sense here, but not in a welfare state like NZ where the country already devotes a third of its budget to income transfers and benefits. I really fail to see why NZ needs a minimum wage if people can just stay on the dole if jobs don’t pay enough. People aren’t stupid and will act in their own best interest. I’d just scrap the minimum wage altogether and make the first $20,000 or so tax-free. Who would work for $2 an hour or some crap wage if the dole paid more? Why would you stay on the dole if you could earn substantially more money tax-free?
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
That is a very laudable aim, but it requires determination and decision that no New Zealand government will ever have, let alone the current one.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Falafulu
So you feel a business owner could discriminate against anyone? Your cafe owner could have a signing saying “No dogs or Jews”?
I’m as happy to have legislated limits to discrimination as I am to have laws against physical violence.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Yes, it’s much better for an anti-Semitic cafe owner to be forced by law by serve a Jew and spit his coffee (or worse) before taking the Jew’s money with a big smile. It’s also wonderful to keep the bigots in business instead of being shamed in public, boycotted and driven out of business for having such disgusting signs visible. And I’m sure Jews everywhere really love unwittingly supporting and enriching businessmen who secretly despise them. In this way, well-intentioned anti-discrimination laws can perversely protect and benefit the bigots while do nothing to prevent or counter bigoted beliefs or prejudices.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Mike said…
Your cafe owner could have a signing saying “No dogs or Jews”?
So, if the cafe owner have such signing on display in front of his property, then the question to ask you is who’s rights has been violated? The dog owner or the Jews? No one. There is no rights violations involved at all.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
That should read “…..be forced by law TO serve a Jew and spit IN his coffee…..”
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Oh well, roll on naked hatred. Must be disappointing to live in NZ instead of Palestine or Kosovo.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Because there is as much justification for me to do that as there is for you to imply I am a sexist and a racist. LDO
Sorry, are you really saying that anti-discrimination laws reduce hate? Legislation isnt magic. It isnt going to make even the mildest racist person less racist.
It is absolutely ridiculous for you to say that anti-discrimination laws would make Palestine and Kosovo bastions of racial acceptance. Get real.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
I have no illusions that anti-discrimination laws would improve life in Palestine or Kosovo, and did not say that.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Sorry, my mistake. I misread. It turns out you were once again slandering your opponent. You said that because they didnt agree with you about anti-discrimination laws that they must hate others based on their race to the extent that they would like to ethnically cleanse the planet of them.
I am bored of your trolling.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Well, once again you have misread me.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
What happened to the debate on youth rates?
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Yes, it’s gone a long way off topic
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
I think I have interpreted this in the only ways possible. Unless you want to explain exactly what you meant by it.
Well, in one sentence … it got derailed by lefties repeating the same tired debunked arguments over and over again, refusing to address all the counterpoints, but instead telling people, who have actually thought about the issue rather than emoting all over it, that they are racist and sexist for not supporting the lefties’ feel-good-achieve-nothing policies.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Hey, that’s a bit unfair. All I did was make the case that minimum rates are simply a sensible employment protection, like anti discrimination policies and health and safety rules and that paying lower rates on the basis of age was simple discrimination.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
You didnt make the case. You simply asserted that minimum wage laws are good and sensible, and youth minimum wage laws are evil.
Like I said. Tired debunked arguments. Yes it is discrimination. So are student discounts. Young people are treated differently.
We have shown that the higher price for young people has lead to higher unemployment (which is what we warned at the time).
Asides from your adolescent reflexive response to the boogey-word “discrimination”, what is wrong with a lower minimum wage for young people?
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
What is wrong with a lower minimum wage for youth is that is values a person’s labour on the basis of their age and not their skills or experience.
I don’t feel that you have debunked any arguments.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, the relationship between minimum wages and employment is far from clear cut. “We have shown that the higher price for young people has lead to higher unemployment” is an overstatement. Studies in this area tend to reflect the existing biases of thier authors. The CIs study is no exception. I wouldn’t go so far as to say there is no relationship between minimum wages and unemployment; but it is only one factor among many.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
The minimum wage does not place a value on anything. It allows a value to be placed. The youth minimum wage does not mean that young people MUST be paid less, only that they can be. If they have skill and experience then they can earn more based on that.
The “simple discrimination” argument has been debunked. Discrimination is not always bad, so appealing to that perception does not make your case.
Go ahead and dismiss EC’s work on this as biased. Thats a great philosophy. It means you can go throughout your entire life without having your mind changed on anything.
Good to know that you wont go so far as to say that price has nothing to do with the demand of something. I mean, that would be pretty fucking retarded. But you would have to explain why price wouldnt be the most important factor, especially over such a short time frame.
Vote:June 13th, 2011 at 10:27 pm
mikenmild says: “the relationship between minimum wages and employment is far from clear cut”…
It is obvious that you have never managed a business, otherwise you’d know from experience that, if given the choice between employing an experienced person or a youth for the same hourly rate, you’d usually opt for the older person. The reasons are patently obvious – reliability / quality of output / life experiences / less risk fitting in with others etc.
With youth rates, it’s possible to change the mix of staff / increase staff numbers, without having to spend any more on wages / salaries. Lefties think this is some form of exploitation, but in the real world it is called giving 11 people jobs instead of 10.
Now, that wasn’t hard, was it?
Vote:June 14th, 2011 at 10:41 am
There is an interesting article in this morning’s Dominion Post in response to the article referred to in DPF’s post. The article is by the CTU’s economist Bill Rosenberg. Unsurprisingly, it takes a different view from the CIS article.
Vote: