Govt assault on young 'uns continues [Archive]

mashman

9th October 2012, 20:35

The return of youth pay rates (nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/unions-opposition-slam-youth-wages-234552202.html)

"On Tuesday, the government unveiled the new "starting-out wage", set at 80 per cent of the adult minimum wage, which is $13.50 an hour, for the first six months of work.

The $10.80 an hour minimum will apply to all 16 and 17-year-olds in their first six months of working for a new employer, along with 18 and 19-year-olds who have previously been on a benefit for six months or longer, and 16 to 19-year-old workers in some industry training."

A job is a job, but you've been alive for a shorter period than others and therefore your contribution will be less so you should get paid less. Have a slap across the face kids. Gone are the days where you can earn a living, pay your rent, pay the bills and still have some cash left over to enjoy yourself... and all because you are young. I kinda feel sorry for the slightly older generation (early twenties) who will have to compete with those who have legally lower wages. Who would the employer prefer? The cheap young option with no experience or the more expensive option with no experience. Fuckin supposed adults make me sick. What a pathetic race we're becoming... actually no, I'm going to disassociate myself from the so called adults who'll accept this as "fair" and say, what a pathetic race you and your representatives are becoming. White motherfuckers.

Ocean1

9th October 2012, 20:39

Fuckin supposed adults make me sick.

When you grow up you'll understand, boy.

mashman

9th October 2012, 20:46

When you grow up you'll understand, boy.

Coming from man, loose term, with his head so far up his own bank account, that means absolutely nothing. Praps when yer marbles start going you'll start to understand, old man.

madandy

9th October 2012, 20:53

scott411

9th October 2012, 21:03

in the business i owed we took quite few kids straight out of school, many with no qualifactions, and trained them, some took a while, but if they had a work ethic they stayed, they all started on youth rates and worked up to tradesmen rates with training though a ITO, and some into management positions as well, most of them would not have got a shot if we had to pay them the minimum wage when they were not worth it, they are all still friends as well, alot still work their,

when they changed the rules we did not take as many chances, it was not worth the risk when you had to pay them the same as a young 20's person that had shorted thier shit out a bit more, so we modified our hiring to suit,

this will help some people get a chance, i doubt any small to medium size business owner who has employed people will disagree,

mashman

9th October 2012, 21:04

mashman

9th October 2012, 21:06

scumdog

9th October 2012, 21:08

Great!
ANOTHER windmill to joust at...:shifty:

Zamiam

9th October 2012, 21:08

Whats wrong with kids being pai a lower wage for 6 months? Once their worth is proven they're gonna get the same as an adult...
A mans pay for a mans work still exists for those that want it but $13.50 to stand around being shown how to do the job is fair to the employer how?

Well said. How many 16 & 17 year olds paying rent etc. do you know mashman?

FFS you bleeding do gooders who expect people to be given things for nothing are the reason the economies of countries like ours have tanked. For the record I'm self employed and NO ONE guarantees me a minimum hourly rate. I work longer hours than my team, live with more stress including how to pay them and have to hope there will be enough left to put gas in the Harley so I can get rid of some of my stress. Oh, let's not forget, if the team members don't deliver and therefore the business doesn't make enough money to pay me THEY STILL GET PAID.

scott411

9th October 2012, 21:11

What's the difference between a 16yr old and a 20yr old in regards to ability (or a 40 yr old for that matter)?

a 16 year old typlically struggles to stay focussed all day because, since they are not used to an 8 hour plus work day, they tend not to take instruction that well, some are better than others and progress quicker, and they tend to talk back a bit as well, which teachers seem to have to put up with, but bosses do not,

also they have no skills in the jobs that I wantd them to do, we taught them those skills, i have yet to see someone come out of a pretrade tech cause with any of those skills either, we stopped sending kids their as it was a waist of money,

I will say that some 20 year olds are just as bad if they have not been in a job as well, and some 40 year olds would be as well, but you tend to have a work history to look back on to see that,

did you start your first job on what you earn now?

Zamiam

9th October 2012, 21:14

madandy

9th October 2012, 21:22

I got paid next to nothing in my first few jobs, but I could afford to pay my rent etc... not everyone wants to stay at "home", but 20+ years later I couldn't make ends meet with what these kids are getting paid. Offering kids less money for the same work is a pathetic joke. I believe it will teach them that they're worth less than another human being solely because they are younger, irrespective of their abilities. Pay bands based on age :rofl: ... wonder how long it will be til that's enforced.

Did you feel "worth less than another human being" ?
I certainly did not. I was gratefull to learn and accepted my learning and the time it took came at an expense to my employer.
All jobs pay more the longer you stick a them. Ya dont get 100k right out of school.

Im self emplyed now and hope to employ a driver soon.
I'll take on a young un witha license and no experience if they're cheaper cause they're gonna cost me money while they learn.
A 20 odd year old with some miles under thei belt will be worth more straight away.

Sure there are exceptions, and its a minimum wage not a maximum and the youth rate aint mandatory. ;)

Many generations of workers have climbed the ranks through age and experience based pay structure...some young uns need some hardening up rather than namby pamby equal rights shit.

mashman

9th October 2012, 21:31

Great!
ANOTHER windmill to joust at...:shifty:

heh... I wish it were that easy.

Well said. How many 16 & 17 year olds paying rent etc. do you know mashman?

FFS you bleeding do gooders who expect people to be given things for nothing are the reason the economies of countries like ours have tanked. For the record I'm self employed and NO ONE guarantees me a minimum hourly rate. I work longer hours than my team, live with more stress including how to pay them and have to hope there will be enough left to put gas in the Harley so I can get rid of some of my stress. Oh, let's not forget, if the team members don't deliver and therefore the business doesn't make enough money to pay me THEY STILL GET PAID.

I don't know. Probably a fuckload less these days than back in my day.

You make my heart bleed... what better reason to pay someone less because they are young, irrespective of ability and capability. Do you know your employees by number or by name?

a 16 year old typlically struggles to stay focussed all day because, since they are not used to an 8 hour plus work day, they tend not to take instruction that well, some are better than others and progress quicker, and they tend to talk back a bit as well, which teachers seem to have to put up with, but bosses do not,

also they have no skills in the jobs that I wantd them to do, we taught them those skills, i have yet to see someone come out of a pretrade tech cause with any of those skills either, we stopped sending kids their as it was a waist of money,

I will say that some 20 year olds are just as bad if they have not been in a job as well, and some 40 year olds would be as well, but you tend to have a work history to look back on to see that,

did you start your first job on what you earn now?

Were you like that at 16? I certainly wasn't. My wife wasn't. Pretty much anyone I knew wasn't... but I can damn well see why some can't be arsed if they're going to be paid less than someone solely based on age. Perhaps treating them like human beings instead of cheeky young fuckers is part of the problem with youth these days. If we're going to treat them like kids, it's hardly surprising that they'll act that way. I don't buy age being an excuse for going from no knowledge to being "skilled", let alone being legislated against.

I started on feck all because I didn't care how much I was paid. People took advantage of that and if I had cared I would have left those jobs, but it paid the bills etc... and I'd venture that plenty of 16yr olds (as well as 20 and 40yr olds) are exactly the same and to that end I see this vunder policy as taking advantage. Age is an excuse, granted there's some merit in youth being uninterested ad displaying the traits you describe, but by no means is it all of them.

Have also hired youngsters straight out of school and to be honest those that deliver on reasonable expectations are a very small minority. In fact they are so few and far between that I made a conscious decision to hire no one under the age of 20 as generally they have at least some work ethic. I'd rather invest my time and my money in a better bet.

And yes it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of age but I, like probably all small business owners, live and survive in the real world NOT the ideal world.

But you'll be able to hire them cheaper soon :innocent:

Tis disappointing to see people accepting that the real world is the best we can do.

Woodman

9th October 2012, 21:37

Have also hired youngsters straight out of school and to be honest those that deliver on reasonable expectations are a very small minority. In fact they are so few and far between that I made a conscious decision to hire no one under the age of 20 as generally they have at least some work ethic. I'd rather invest my time and my money in a better bet.

And yes it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of age but I, like probably all small business owners, live and survive in the real world NOT the ideal world.

Well said, and my policy is the same except I go for older again.Been bitten too many times. Any slight headache/sniffle and they don't come to work, unwillingness to do the shit jobs because its demeaning, drug problems, relationship problems, car problems, the constant texting, the badgering for time off, fuck me its just hard work managing the younguns on a daily basis. Got better things to do.

scott411

9th October 2012, 21:39

Were you like that at 16? I certainly wasn't. My wife wasn't. Pretty much anyone I knew wasn't... but I can damn well see why some can't be arsed if they're going to be paid less than someone solely based on age. Perhaps treating them like human beings instead of cheeky young fuckers is part of the problem with youth these days. If we're going to treat them like kids, it's hardly surprising that they'll act that way. I don't buy age being an excuse for going from no knowledge to being "skilled", let alone being legislated against.

me, i started on youth rates, $4.10 an hour if i remember correctly in 1995, at New World Papakura, i think if got a pay rise about 2 months in, as i turned up all the time, did what i was told and used my head when needed, which was not the norm with every kid they employed, i have had a few jobs since then and are pretty sure every employer would take me back, i don't think any of them exploited me, but i have seen some poeple in most jobs that were not worth the money they were getting paid, not matter how low, and most of them did not stay long,

I would say at 16 i still was not worth what i am worth an hour now, i did not have the skills i picked up over the last 14 years of full time work,
how many 16 year olds have you employed? and did all of them meet your expectations straight away?

mashman

9th October 2012, 21:39

Did you feel "worth less than another human being" ?
I certainly did not. I was gratefull to learn and accepted my learning and the time it took came at an expense to my employer.
All jobs pay more the longer you stick a them. Ya dont get 100k right out of school.

Im self emplyed now and hope to employ a driver soon.
I'll take on a young un witha license and no experience if they're cheaper cause they're gonna cost me money while they learn.
A 20 odd year old with some miles under thei belt will be worth more straight away.

Sure there are exceptions, and its a minimum wage not a maximum and the youth rate aint mandatory. ;)

Many generations of workers have climbed the ranks through age and experience based pay structure...some young uns need some hardening up rather than namby pamby equal rights shit.

To a degree yes. I could do exactly the same job as those who were on considerably more money than I was. I would have felt more valued if I had been getting paid like for like, or even close. Fortunately I was having a shitload of fun and didn't care enough to chase the money rainbow at the expense of my happiness. So from a financial perspective I was taken advantage of and felt like I was worth less. That doesn't mean that I wasn't greatful to learn.

To a degree I agree that some jobs pay more the longer you stick at them, but certainly not all.

Namby pamby equal rights shit? I've always found it amusing that you can pay someone less because of their age irrespective of skill level etc... I'd hardly say that valuing a person based on their contribution was namby pamby.

Zamiam

9th October 2012, 21:41

mashman

9th October 2012, 21:50

me, i started on youth rates, $4.10 an hour if i remember correctly in 1995, at New World Papakura, i think if got a pay rise about 2 months in, as i turned up all the time, did what i was told and used my head when needed, which was not the norm with every kid they employed, i have had a few jobs since then and are pretty sure every employer would take me back, i don't think any of them exploited me, but i have seen some poeple in most jobs that were not worth the money they were getting paid, not matter how low, and most of them did not stay long,

I would say at 16 i still was not worth what i am worth an hour now, i did not have the skills i picked up over the last 14 years of full time work,
how many 16 year olds have you employed? and did all of them meet your expectations straight away?

I'm not saying that they should be paid 100k off the bat... but I do believe that they should be paid enough to be able to support themselves off the bat... rent, bills etc... I can understand why some would be underwhelmed enough not to put in the effort. What is it people like to say, pay peanuts get monkeys :shifty:. To that end I'd say that if those kids who are "lazy" were paid better, with an explanation of why they were being paid better, then employers would likely get a better performance out of them. I say that because there are plenty of 20/30/40/50 yr olds I've come across with a shit work ethic and primarily because they're focussed on how much they're being paid.

I have employed none, not directly. Does that mean I don't qualify to have an opinion :corn:. I have "mentored" a few straight out of Uni and have worked with YTS kids and they were pretty much of a much.

madandy

9th October 2012, 21:53

To a degree yes. I could do exactly the same job as those who were on considerably more money than I was. I would have felt more valued if I had been getting paid like for like, or even close. Fortunately I was having a shitload of fun and didn't care enough to chase the money rainbow at the expense of my happiness. So from a financial perspective I was taken advantage of and felt like I was worth less. That doesn't mean that I wasn't greatful to learn.

To a degree I agree that some jobs pay more the longer you stick at them, but certainly not all.

Namby pamby equal rights shit? I've always found it amusing that you can pay someone less because of their age irrespective of skill level etc... I'd hardly say that valuing a person based on their contribution was namby pamby.

I see your point and agree that age and skill aren't mutually exclusive but in the work I've done they practically are and so paying a young un less is, I beleive entirely acceptable.
What, at age 16 were you equally skilled at as someone years moreexperinced?
Also, this is not a compulsary scheme and those whose contribution at their workplace is equal to or greater than other workers should be remunerated acordingly.

Its a namby pamby social disease to pay all workers equally regardless of skill or experience or to raise kids beleiving they are of equal monetary value regarless of age or skill. Earn it and be rewarded.

mashman

9th October 2012, 21:53

Simple question mashman - How many people have you ever employed? And if you have how many school leavers?

I have always paid someone for the job they do so have NEVER paid minimum wage BUT it does mean I have OVERPAID people.

None as mentioned in the post above this one. Does that mean I have absolutely no clue?

Fair enough and onya... shame everyone doesn't do the same.

Zamiam

9th October 2012, 21:56

I have employed none, not directly.

Will defend your right to your opinion even if I don't agree with it. That being said the above quote shows that your opinion is that of someone who has no experience on the topic in question. Yet another EMPLOYEE type telling EMPLOYERS they know better.

scott411

9th October 2012, 21:59

I'm not saying that they should be paid 100k off the bat... but I do believe that they should be paid enough to be able to support themselves off the bat... rent, bills etc... I can understand why some would be underwhelmed enough not to put in the effort. What is it people like to say, pay peanuts get monkeys :shifty:. To that end I'd say that if those kids who are "lazy" were paid better, with an explanation of why they were being paid better, then employers would likely get a better performance out of them. I say that because there are plenty of 20/30/40/50 yr olds I've come across with a shit work ethic and primarily because they're focussed on how much they're being paid.

I have employed none, not directly. Does that mean I don't qualify to have an opinion :corn:. I have "mentored" a few straight out of Uni and have worked with YTS kids and they were pretty much of a much.

not saying you dont deserve and opinion, but i have been there on both sides, the carrot theory works but with most things in life you have to earn it first, not get given it then told you need to do so much to keep it, i have given pay rises in as little as a month, yet some kids took longer to learn, and this goes for 20 year olds as well, in fact i have had young guys over take the people that started 2 year ahead of them because they put the work and effort in,

the truth is that since they dropped the youth rates down to only 3 months, the youth unemployment rate has sky rocketed when compared to the normal unemployment rate, the GFC and the economic turndown had made it worse than it would have been in the good times, and you have had a number of employers here telling you that it is not worth the risk to give someone a chance when you can take less of a risk with someone older, you can choose to believe us, or not, i know i am not alone in feeling this way,

mashman

9th October 2012, 22:05

I see your point and agree that age and skill aren't mutually exclusive but in the work I've done they practically are and so paying a young un less is, I beleive entirely acceptable.
What, at age 16 were you equally skilled at as someone years moreexperinced?
Also, this is not a compulsary scheme and those whose contribution at their workplace is equal to or greater than other workers should be remunerated acordingly.

Its a namby pamby social disease to pay all workers equally regardless of skill or experience or to raise kids beleiving they are of equal monetary value regarless of age or skill. Earn it and be rewarded.

I agree that they shouldn't get 100k off the bat, but as posted earlier, they're hardly getting paid enough to make their own way. I understand the idea behind the hard yards, but even those who have it "easy" have to do the hard yards. Why make it even harder by paying them less just because you can?
Dodging school, stacking shelves, managing/processing/validating the stock arrivals, turning up for work, putting a roof on a house, tying knots, mending creels, driving boats, fuckin up royally and pretty much anything I turned my hand to and all within a relatively short space of time. My point is that 16yr olds aren't useless, so why do we persist in treating/paying them as though they are?

And the opposite has created what? Certainly not a society that I'd be proud of touting at any intergalactic board meeting :laugh:. I never said irrespective of skill or age for that matter, but I believe that they are worth minimum wage or a trip to the dole. This financially penalising them because they are considered to be all but useless doesn't wash in my naive little book and does more damage than good in regards to character building. Start valuing them and perhaps they'll start valuing their contribution?

mashman

9th October 2012, 22:08

Will defend your right to your opinion even if I don't agree with it. That being said the above quote shows that your opinion is that of someone who has no experience on the topic in question. Yet another EMPLOYEE type telling EMPLOYERS they know better.

:rofl: so for the last 20+ years I've been absolutely blind as to what it takes to run a business? Interesting evaluation and not one I am prepared to agree with.

mashman

9th October 2012, 22:21

not saying you dont deserve and opinion, but i have been there on both sides, the carrot theory works but with most things in life you have to earn it first, not get given it then told you need to do so much to keep it, i have given pay rises in as little as a month, yet some kids took longer to learn, and this goes for 20 year olds as well, in fact i have had young guys over take the people that started 2 year ahead of them because they put the work and effort in,

the truth is that since they dropped the youth rates down to only 3 months, the youth unemployment rate has sky rocketed when compared to the normal unemployment rate, the GFC and the economic turndown had made it worse than it would have been in the good times, and you have had a number of employers here telling you that it is not worth the risk to give someone a chance when you can take less of a risk with someone older, you can choose to believe us, or not, i know i am not alone in feeling this way,

It's not that I don't believe you and I have noted the employers and their feelings towards potential employees and fully understand the reasoning behind why you guys make the decisions you do in the best interests of your business... obviously there's a but coming, if employers are all going to hold out for someone older because of the risk factor, then how is a couple of K per year going to change that risk? coz that seems to be what it boils down to, cashflow v's some excuse

I have no issue with pissing in the wind... seems you get a better quality of education by doing so, however it isn't appreciated by many for some reason :rofl:

scissorhands

9th October 2012, 22:23

madandy

9th October 2012, 22:29

I agree that they shouldn't get 100k off the bat, but as posted earlier, they're hardly getting paid enough to make their own way. I understand the idea behind the hard yards, but even those who have it "easy" have to do the hard yards. Why make it even harder by paying them less just because you can?
Dodging school, stacking shelves, managing/processing/validating the stock arrivals, turning up for work, putting a roof on a house, tying knots, mending creels, driving boats, fuckin up royally and pretty much anything I turned my hand to and all within a relatively short space of time. My point is that 16yr olds aren't useless, so why do we persist in treating/paying them as though they are?

And the opposite has created what? Certainly not a society that I'd be proud of touting at any intergalactic board meeting :laugh:. I never said irrespective of skill or age for that matter, but I believe that they are worth minimum wage or a trip to the dole. This financially penalising them because they are considered to be all but useless doesn't wash in my naive little book and does more damage than good in regards to character building. Start valuing them and perhaps they'll start valuing their contribution?

They've had the same minimum wage as adults for a few years now...havent they?

I think theres no point debating that a yoof can stack a shelf or tiea knot or nail iron to a house aswell as the next adult but when talking of higher skill employment they have a way to go.

mashman

9th October 2012, 22:39

They've had the same minimum wage as adults for a few years now...havent they?

I think theres no point debating that a yoof can stack a shelf or tiea knot or nail iron to a house aswell as the next adult but when talking of higher skill employment they have a way to go.

Heh, there are some adults, according to the misleading media, who get paid less than minimum wage too.

As someone mentioned earlier, they're highly unlike to be earning 100k, or even 40k off the bat, but that doesn't mean that just because they can only tie knots, bang in nails or stack shelves exactly the same as the "older" guys that they should get paid less purely on age. They're still pulling their weight on the balance sheet after all. Sure there are plenty of skilled jobs that require training, certification etc... and yes I believe in time served etc... I just can't accept paying someone less than minimum wage because they are young. Fair enough, to a degree if it's performance related, but not if they are of equal skill level. It's almost as though we're hearing that because we are older, that we should be entitled to more money irrespective of the skills required to do the job.

mashman

9th October 2012, 22:40

Young people are healthier and fitter..... old people should be paid less:blink:

I'd be worth every cent of that :blink:

Berries

9th October 2012, 23:26

I used to scrape slices of human brain off the floor in the pathology labs at less than minimum wage. I cleaned toilets, swept floors, planted plants and fitted shops. I poked automatic letter stuffing machines on 12 hour night shifts seven days on no days off all at less than minimum wage. It is the price you pay for being young and if it doesn't make you want to better yourself then, well, I guess you must like it.

GrayWolf

9th October 2012, 23:30

Pharking ageist bastards<_<

I started on 40% of a tradesman wage, and did a similar[or greater] output, after my tradesman set me up to go

Young people are healthier and fitter..... old people should be paid less:blink:

Yeh but instead of working HARDER, the old bastard knows all the tricks of the trade, with years of experience, THATS what he is paid for,, it may take a mechanic, plumber, electrician 15 minutes to find and sort out a problem, BECAUSE he has the skill, training and knowledge.

I agree that they shouldn't get 100k off the bat, but as posted earlier, they're hardly getting paid enough to make their own way. I understand the idea behind the hard yards, but even those who have it "easy" have to do the hard yards. Why make it even harder by paying them less just because you can?
Dodging school, stacking shelves, managing/processing/validating the stock arrivals, turning up for work, putting a roof on a house, tying knots, mending creels, driving boats, fuckin up royally and pretty much anything I turned my hand to and all within a relatively short space of time. My point is that 16yr olds aren't useless, so why do we persist in treating/paying them as though they are?

And the opposite has created what? Certainly not a society that I'd be proud of touting at any intergalactic board meeting :laugh:. I never said irrespective of skill or age for that matter, but I believe that they are worth minimum wage or a trip to the dole. This financially penalising them because they are considered to be all but useless doesn't wash in my naive little book and does more damage than good in regards to character building. Start valuing them and perhaps they'll start valuing their contribution?

Man this really does wind me up. As an apprentice (1974) I got paid 12 GB pounds a week. ($30 approx) just under a third of a qualified fitter/turner, and a 1/4 of a toolmaker's wages. Out of that I took home 10 quid, $5 was rent, $5 quid had to support me through the week. I eventually bought a moped (50cc with pedals) as my first bike.
These days? I see kids paying their parents $20 aweek for keep, and then going out and buying a bloody 10k WRX/Evo etc on the knock. I had to learn to budget to live, and hell yes I went without a lot of things for the first 2 years of work. A large amount of 16 yr old's these days are semi literate and incapable of carrying out instructions without 'pouting about it'..... They are so used to playing up at school and no one can 'touch them' when suddenly they can be sacked for the same shit they performed at school. I go shopping and maybe buy a coffee/bun etc in a cafe.. I can add the cost on my head faster than most 'youngsters' can do a sum on paper, or hells teeth, use the add feature on the till, and then watch them struggle to get the change correct from the till drawer.
I know even as an Apprentice, for the first 2 years (1 full time in technical college, 2nd block releaase and work 'experience') NO WAY was I 'productive' for my employer. By 1978 I was earning 80 UK pounds a week, at 21 when I had completed my City and Guilds (apprenticship) and taken a further 1 year Higher National cert as a 'Toolmaker' I was earning 160 GB pounds a week. (when I started my mates were earning between 20-25 quid a week, double what I got... by the end of my Apprenticeship I was earning double their adult wage. Most kids/youth want it all, NOW,,, they don't want to accept they do NOT do an adult days work.

Brian d marge

10th October 2012, 00:11

mossy1200

10th October 2012, 06:12

Funny

I cant find the bit where they are tax free for the first 6months.

Does this mean its not a move to help young people get into a job but instead to stop paying them a benefit?

I started on 40% of trade wage and was in a flat. I worked in the market gardens in the weekend for extra money to spend.
Things are a bit different these days. Get a job and stay at home. Go to clubs and buy a car with loaned money and then make it fast and loud with more loaned money.

Akzle

10th October 2012, 06:27

setting aside the fact that i'm generally opposed to the government, i'm not opposed to this scheme. from what i've heard, it's only 16 & 17 year olds, and only for the first 6 months at a new job.
asides from anything, from an employer perspective, that actually only "saves" 2800$, the remainder of OSH requirements, providing PPE etc. remain
the employer may decide they would rather pay that 3K than have to put up with a 16 year old who's going to fuck shit up and leave in 7 months.
not to mention that some jobs just aren't worth minimum wage. and if the government hadn't fucked up the whole money/tax thing, a "living wage" would be considerably less.

oneofsix

10th October 2012, 06:28

FJRider

10th October 2012, 06:55

a 16 year old typlically struggles to stay focussed all day because, since they are not used to an 8 hour plus work day, they tend not to take instruction that well, some are better than others and progress quicker, and they tend to talk back a bit as well, which teachers seem to have to put up with, but bosses do not,

16 year old kids bitch about the length of the school day now.

Most 16-18 year old's live at home ... (tied to mummy's apron strings)

Welcome to the real world kids ...

FJRider

10th October 2012, 07:01

GrayWolf

10th October 2012, 10:29

The world fundamentally changed August 15th 1968 and again in 1982 , the argument of when I was a lad is null and void. Though on the face of it 6 months on ten dollars an hour doesn’t seem that bad, its how the employers use it that remains to be seen and remember we have the 90 day and the two week stand down

watch this space is all I can say.

Stephen

You're right these days it IS different... they have no 'consequences' for bad behaviour at school, they fuck around, tell teachers to fuck off, dont learn (Yes I will admit not ALL kids, but now a large group of them), prefer to play computer games, txt etc etc. A few years ago there was a UK TV program called 'that'll learn them'.. it was a 'reality'? show that put modern age school children who from their results were going to do well in the current Exam regime. They were given a standard O level paper we took in the 50's/60's/70's, every one of them failed. The kids were put into a 'mock school' under the old style discipline and teaching methods of the 50'60's (except the cane/corporal punishment was not allowed). They were subjected to the same type of schooling we had, hard teachers who took no shit, in fact THEY dished out the shit. End result after 3 months the kids grammar, subject knowledge, and written English skills improved exponentially. over 70% passed a second 'mock O level'. When we took History or Geography we LOST marks for bad spelling, bad grammar etc.
So yeh you're right, it is different today, they are allowed to use 'txt' abrv's, u kno wat i meen, i kan rite lyk ths nd sum mployr wul guv me a jb, coz me a gud stdnt at skwl.
Apart from which, they bully little jimmy at school, omg, they have Parent teacher meetings and 'counselling' as to why they did it, it isnt nice etc etc,,,, go into the workforce and do the same shit? Out on their ear sacked and an assault charge... now how the fuck does a PTA style meeting prepare them for the 'real world'? i watch youngsters at my work both as staff and as passengers. There is an almost dividing line between them. Some and I think becoming the minority, have manners, ability, and are obviously employable. The other side and from my observation a very large proportion, have no respect among themselves or towards others, (yeh I know old bastards say that about EVERY generation) but just think on this, if the current crop of young people dont like being told what to do, and ' I have my rights, dont touch me... I can get an 'independance allowance' and divorce you if your mean to me mum and dad'.... what the fuck are YOUR kids going to be like when young teenagers???
Worldwide there has been a shift towards employing OLDER people over the young ones, why IS that? We cost more to employ (wages) We have less years left to 'give' although the days of a 50 year man are dead and gone. We can get sick more often, less fit, wear glasses, move slower..... We must be able to offer an employer something the youth cant... and I'd gues it's reliability, work ethic, better command of English written and spoken, more adept at maths, likely more polite towards customers.... dont even GET me started on the pissy attitude of 'shop assistants'.
I look at the youngsters in my work, they have to handle money so maths is a 'must' for them, as well as an ability to communicate effectively. Yes they are out there, but a lot of them are Uni students doing part time, and the full time ones? You can see they ARE the kids who did knuckle down and actually LEARN at skewl, unsted of fukin arund and telin that fkin teecha theer a dik.

SMOKEU

10th October 2012, 10:37

I used to scrape slices of human brain off the floor in the pathology labs at less than minimum wage.

Pics or it didn't happen.

sidecar bob

10th October 2012, 10:47

I left school on $3.50 per hour. What it taught me was that if I wanted more, I had to up skill & work harder.
I did & I honestly wouldnt have a clue what my yearly income is now, all things taken into account. But suffice to say, mission accomplished.
Nowadays, people have a champion that goes into bat for them when they want to stay home & smoke drugs, & when the Govt wants them to only be paid 50 percent more than they are actually worth.

blue rider

10th October 2012, 12:07

being paid a lower wage during the 3 years of an apprentyship or a similar training scheme makes sense.
when I was an apprentice my first wage was 250 Deutsch Mark monthly. After paying board I had 90 Mark left.
I did not live at home. This was also in the eighties and stuff was actually cheaper then today.

However having a standard McDo job and then being paid less because of age....
Working for Starbucks making coffee, and being paid less because of age.....
Working for pretty much any retail business and being paid less because of age.....well you get my drift.

There is a huge difference between a paid training scheme and a standard job. And in a standard job (i.e. frying burgers, and manning a till at the warehouse etc ) for which youth can now be legally paid less then their older counterparts is age discrimination, with a nice potential for abuse, no matter how legalised.

Banditbandit

10th October 2012, 12:43

You're right these days it IS different... they have no 'consequences' for bad behaviour at school, they fuck around, tell teachers to fuck off, dont learn

So what's really changed???

In 1898, newspapers in England warned of the menace of "hooligans" and of a "dramatic increase in disorderly behaviour". The Times reported "organised terrorism in the streets". In every decade of the 20th century there were similar media panics.

"When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly disrespectful and impatient of restraint".
Hesiod, 8th century BC

"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"
Plato, 4th Century BC

"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint... As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress."
Attributed to Peter the Hermit, AD 12743

In the 1800s, hordes of teens and pre-teens ran wild in American city streets, dodging authorities, "gnawing away at the foundations of society", as a commentator put it. In 1850, New York City recorded more than 200 gang wars fought largely by adolescent boys.

"Juvenile delinquency has increased at an alarming rate and is eating at the heart of America"
US juvenile court judge, 1946

Brian d marge

10th October 2012, 14:24

So what's really changed???

In 1898, newspapers in England warned of the menace of "hooligans" and of a "dramatic increase in disorderly behaviour". The Times reported "organised terrorism in the streets". In every decade of the 20th century there were similar media panics.

"When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly disrespectful and impatient of restraint".
Hesiod, 8th century BC

"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"
Plato, 4th Century BC

"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint... As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress."
Attributed to Peter the Hermit, AD 12743

In the 1800s, hordes of teens and pre-teens ran wild in American city streets, dodging authorities, "gnawing away at the foundations of society", as a commentator put it. In 1850, New York City recorded more than 200 gang wars fought largely by adolescent boys.

"Juvenile delinquency has increased at an alarming rate and is eating at the heart of America"
US juvenile court judge, 1946
I sometimes use those quotes , but it isn’t about behaviour , that is a by product of a bigger malaise , basically the world removed itself from the gold standard completely , we all tied ourselves to the American dollar , Nixon fiddled the books and money became backed by debt ( assets , and a promise ) then in the late 70s a new way of quantifying things began to be used , ( Kind of game theory , Nash as in a beautiful mind movie ) , well the only way this theory works is if we all are assumed to be selfish and a bastard ( in tests it didn’t work, but was handy to use)
So
we now have, money that’s backed by a promise ( Greece) , quantifiable performance target produced by cnts , the only way to grow is to either export more ( transfer of wealth and Knowledge ) or go deeper into debt ( money,if used in fractional reserve system is debt) and means that if you want to become wealthy , its by moving money ( property , speculation, )

Gone are the days of work hard save your money ( Remember Burkis in David Copperfield and the box he had ? ...not an option these days, as one little devaluation would make Burkis's money buy a lot less than it did..Quantitative easing , or printing money has similar effect, ,,,,,) in fact if you save, then the country cant grow, as grow need new money entering the system !!!

So IF you can move money , or if you had speculative assets , then your net worth grew, if you didn’t , then you remained static. ( most of NZ under 40 ) IF you had a problem and needed state assistance , you are in deep poo ( remember the biggest benefit USERS are the retired,,nearly half)

So as those who can do , and those who cant don’t , the gap widens , and those near the bottom are disenfranchised , invent strange systems to justify things , this entrenches itself over generations ...and you end up in the mess we are in now

The behaviour of YOOF , and in my day arguments ,,,, all null and void , if you were in the asset market around 1970 then you should be home and hosed , if you are trying to enter the asset market after 1980 , your screwed ( can be done but not as easily as in 1960 ) the system of economics and rationalization(s) we use to day has produce the society we have now . me, me, me

Stephen

Sorry if the above isn’t clear , its a difficult subject and I cant do it justice in a few lines,,,,,

mashman

10th October 2012, 15:12

Man this really does wind me up. As an apprentice (1974) I got paid 12 GB pounds a week. ($30 approx) just under a third of a qualified fitter/turner, and a 1/4 of a toolmaker's wages. Out of that I took home 10 quid, $5 was rent, $5 quid had to support me through the week. I eventually bought a moped (50cc with pedals) as my first bike.
These days? I see kids paying their parents $20 aweek for keep, and then going out and buying a bloody 10k WRX/Evo etc on the knock. I had to learn to budget to live, and hell yes I went without a lot of things for the first 2 years of work. A large amount of 16 yr old's these days are semi literate and incapable of carrying out instructions without 'pouting about it'..... They are so used to playing up at school and no one can 'touch them' when suddenly they can be sacked for the same shit they performed at school. I go shopping and maybe buy a coffee/bun etc in a cafe.. I can add the cost on my head faster than most 'youngsters' can do a sum on paper, or hells teeth, use the add feature on the till, and then watch them struggle to get the change correct from the till drawer.
I know even as an Apprentice, for the first 2 years (1 full time in technical college, 2nd block releaase and work 'experience') NO WAY was I 'productive' for my employer. By 1978 I was earning 80 UK pounds a week, at 21 when I had completed my City and Guilds (apprenticship) and taken a further 1 year Higher National cert as a 'Toolmaker' I was earning 160 GB pounds a week. (when I started my mates were earning between 20-25 quid a week, double what I got... by the end of my Apprenticeship I was earning double their adult wage. Most kids/youth want it all, NOW,,, they don't want to accept they do NOT do an adult days work.

As Stephen says you can't compare one generation with the other in regards to availability of anything. I was encouraged to travel and seek work abroad by my step mum as it was what she and her generation did back in the 60's. 20 years later and I'm fighting for the same jobs but with 10 times as many people. Knowing the seasons to go woulda helped too :innocent:... so this isn't anything new. I'm with you in regards to the fast cars etc... but as long as you can make the repayments, why wouldn't you? As "adults" we take out loans for houses and those toys so I see no reason that "kids" shoudln't be allowed to either. Other than they'd have a bit more $ in their pocket. Dunno about you but I spent anything I earned damned quickly once the rent and food had been covered.

Here's some food for thought (http://news.yahoo.com/worlds-big-wanted-sign-600-million-jobs-200153869--politics.html)... NZ's answer: make it cheaper for businesses to employee young people at the expense of others.

"Just to keep the rate of joblessness constant, the global economy will need to create 600 million jobs over the next eight years, according to a new World Bank report."

"“Looking ahead, no significant improvement appears in the offing,” states the IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook. Many workers have simply left the labor force. More than 620 billion young people have no job or aren’t being educated, the World Bank finds."

Time for a change of tack methinks... or are we gonna keep ignoring the obvious. I know, I know, that's a rhetorical question, but I hope that someday adults will actually become adults in some capacity other than demanding respect and money given that they have existed for longer than others. Funny that they demand respect from youth given the lack of respect offered in return.

mashman

10th October 2012, 15:15

However having a standard McDo job and then being paid less because of age....
Working for Starbucks making coffee, and being paid less because of age.....
Working for pretty much any retail business and being paid less because of age.....well you get my drift.

There is a huge difference between a paid training scheme and a standard job. And in a standard job (i.e. frying burgers, and manning a till at the warehouse etc ) for which youth can now be legally paid less then their older counterparts is age discrimination, with a nice potential for abuse, no matter how legalised.

Bang on for me. Tis such a shame that the amount of $ a person can command is limited by someone else's perception of what that is worth. Stupid adults playing stupid adult games and screwing kids over for a few bucks being justified by age :facepalm:... it's almost as though they are being labelled as something other than human beings. fackin disgustin.

tigertim20

10th October 2012, 15:19

Brett

10th October 2012, 15:32

What's the difference between a 16yr old and a 20yr old in regards to ability (or a 40 yr old for that matter)?

A lot. At 18 when I left school I was worth (maybe) minimum wage, by the time I was 20 I had worked hard, done some studying, learned skills and was worth well over the average wage.

Brian d marge

10th October 2012, 16:02

you will still only make the perceived value for your skill set.

The purchasing power of a young persons income in the late 60s was more than it is today , late fifties you only needed ONE income to purchase a house, NOW its two , with all the social ills that come with that,

With the Ageing Tsunami approaching, A fundamental economic shift / values shift needs to happen,

May I suggest:

Remove speculation on homes ( capital gains tax)

Remove market forces from education up to polytechnic ( student loans etc ,,or subsidies loans for low decile students

School dinners

Remove taxes and/or subsidise fresh fruit and green veggies and increase it onto meat and high fructose goods

Remove market forces on electricity , or subsidise local generation , solar power per house , insulation , larger installations per community ( ie bring back the electricity board )

bring back work schemes for GOVERNMENT asset creation , bridges roads ,,,,

Just a few quick thoughts

Stephen

mossy1200

10th October 2012, 16:18

If greedy forkers stopped lending our youth money in the form of loans and hp's to buy now and pay later half our youth issues would go away.

It wasnt that long ago saving to purchase gave everyone insentive to work hard youth included. With that returned we wouldnt need a different pay rate for the young. They would have a better attitude towards working.

mashman

10th October 2012, 16:39

bogan

10th October 2012, 16:39

But you'll be able to hire them cheaper soon :innocent:

Which evens the playing field, at the moment who would get hired first; a 16yo high school dropout (I think at 16 there would be no chance they would have gone through 7th form right?) or a 20yo who has been working for a year or two with a reference etc. Bit of a no brainer I would think, unless the 16yo is cheaper!

Also, who can't manage to live on the 10.20per hour? after tax that will still be over 350 per week, if us students can do it on 240, why can't they do it for more?

mashman

10th October 2012, 16:44

Road kill

10th October 2012, 17:23

The young have always been paid less than their older work mates.

And with good reason.
A lot of them are a waste of fresh air anyway,an those that do have a clue get better at what their doing and end up earning more as a result.

When I started work I was paid $25 a week for the first 12 months,my elders doing the same job where on $35.

This is life,,,it has nothing to do with white mother fuckers,,,get used to it.

Flip

10th October 2012, 17:41

This is just smoke and mirrors after the recent actions of our prime minister with dotcomgate

I woulden't employ any young folk these days. It doesen't matter what the pay rate is. They are just not worth the bother.

The only think I want to hear from generetion Y these days is if I want to upsize my combo.

scumdog

10th October 2012, 17:59

When I was younger, a kid im my class (15 or 16) was the deputy storeman at a supermarket, he was responsible for a hundred thousand dollars worth of stock. he got paid significantly less per hour than the down syndrome kid who collected trollies from the car[ark, because the down's kid was a little older.

fuck that.

hmm, guess Im not so on the fence after all

And they both stayed on that same relative rate forever?? - I doubt it.

Brian d marge

10th October 2012, 18:10

Just hope that when generation gets its hands on power they have a short memory ,,,, or life for the elderly will be big buckets of poo

Stephen

scumdog

10th October 2012, 18:16

Just hope that when generation gets its hands on power they have a short memory ,,,, or life for the elderly will be big buckets of poo

Stephen

Yeah, us oldies thought that one too - many years ago...

Berries

10th October 2012, 18:17

he got paid significantly less per hour than the down syndrome kid who collected trollies from the car[ark, because the down's kid was a little older.
How is DM these days anyway?

Road kill

10th October 2012, 18:17

Just hope that when generation gets its hands on power they have a short memory ,,,, or life for the elderly will be big buckets of poo

Stephen

The ones that won't get off their arses for $10 an hour won't have any power.

Brian d marge

10th October 2012, 18:23

Yeah, us oldies thought that one too - many years ago...

done quite a good job of executing that plan then,,,, ( tui ad)

Stephen

mossy1200

10th October 2012, 18:25

Just hope that when generation gets its hands on power they have a short memory ,,,, or life for the elderly will be big buckets of poo

Stephen

All good. It will get sold before we are old.

GrayWolf

10th October 2012, 23:21

A lot. At 18 when I left school I was worth (maybe) minimum wage, by the time I was 20 I had worked hard, done some studying, learned skills and was worth well over the average wage.

And if you had have left school at 14 and had worked hard etc... you would have been earning at 16 what you were earning at 20.

Whats your point mashman, either way round, he would have gained 2 years experience at the job... In fact Brett re iterates my point.. at 16 I was paid 12 quid a week about half of what my school mates got working in 'low skill' type employment, by 21 (5 yrs later) I was earning DOUBLE what they could at adult wage rates..... But I can assure you, your average txt speaking, attitude ridden, (i aint gunna make the tea, clean out that machine, sweep the floor) fuckwit wouldnt even get into the trade (engineering) cuz they kuldnt komprehnd unglish langwadge an do maf's. Trust me when you are working out relief angles for form tooling, reading a blueprint with tolerances of 2/10 of a thousandth of an inch (average piece of paper is 6 thou, thick to give you an idea how minuscule that is) on ground surfaces. Or, reading a complex plan or formulae/calculation requirement. Ya kunt txt yur mate or ask the 4man if yu can use yur laptop.

Marmoot

11th October 2012, 01:08

Brian d marge

11th October 2012, 02:59

I don't understand why this thread is.

Let's look at a hypothetical world where I have money to hire someone to do something. If I get two applicants, one that is 16 years old youngster who very likely has never worked anywhere before (ergo dubious work ethics) and another a seasoned 27 year old with a wife nagging at him to bring home some money each week, both asking the same hourly rate.....why should I favour the young one and not the one with a greater chance of success?

Now, in a parallel universe with lower minimum wage for young workers, if that means I can save some money and I know cashflow is important for me for the next 6 months, I'd probably think the young one is worth a try. This way the young one might end up getting work experience (which does not involve peddling drugs on the street) while the older one may end up getting a better job that properly uses his current experience.

Seriously, c'mon people....

you have hit the nail on the head. not sure if you realise the ramifications , but on the face of it ,, the above is what it looks like. The Bigger picture is the government is just about to print money to try and fix a mess , and its a vote winner this one. but does NOTHING to fix the problem that being , we are an agriculurally based economey with one or two big customers who have closed the chequebook ( well china hasnt but ,,,)
the treasury is ( as far as the IMF are concerned ) good , foget what the pollies say ,the treasury has been separated for a while now and has usually done a god job...

I repeat for the hard of reading, The world has changed and what happened when u were a YOOF doesnt apply now, ITS A DIFFERENT ECONOMIC WORLD NOW.

IF I was 16 again, ( I would do a lot more shaggin, thats for sure ,) I would either stay in school until I had to borrow ( yes we have to borrow 50k odd BEFORE we get a job) Then I would find out what the exams were and what was required to pass and only do that thereby only incurring course fees or even only exam fees
or even find out what I needed to know for the exam , self study untill I was ready THEN enrol ...working if I could
THEN ..try NZ for work , if sh is pushed up hill ...Australia here I come. try there. ( and a lot more shaggin )

stephen

Marmoot

11th October 2012, 03:31

IF I was 16 again, ( I would do a lot more shaggin, thats for sure ,) I would either stay in school until I had to borrow ( yes we have to borrow 50k odd BEFORE we get a job) Then I would find out what the exams were and what was required to pass and only do that thereby only incurring course fees or even only exam fees

You're one of the smart ones. The sad reality is that not everyone is that smart, and those that aren't tend to go to the workforce as soon as they could. In that situation, despite the increased opportunities (see my post) they are now worth "less" than previously due to the new regulation. And since they are not that smart, they can't see the bigger picture. They can only see the negative side and starts compl.........ooo, I get it now :facepalm:

mashman

11th October 2012, 07:54

Whats your point mashman, either way round, he would have gained 2 years experience at the job... In fact Brett re iterates my point.. at 16 I was paid 12 quid a week about half of what my school mates got working in 'low skill' type employment, by 21 (5 yrs later) I was earning DOUBLE what they could at adult wage rates..... But I can assure you, your average txt speaking, attitude ridden, (i aint gunna make the tea, clean out that machine, sweep the floor) fuckwit wouldnt even get into the trade (engineering) cuz they kuldnt komprehnd unglish langwadge an do maf's. Trust me when you are working out relief angles for form tooling, reading a blueprint with tolerances of 2/10 of a thousandth of an inch (average piece of paper is 6 thou, thick to give you an idea how minuscule that is) on ground surfaces. Or, reading a complex plan or formulae/calculation requirement. Ya kunt txt yur mate or ask the 4man if yu can use yur laptop.

Fuckin hard to read that text shit... quit it would ya :laugh:. You're highlighting the need for a specialist. I couldn't do the job you're talking about. That doesn't mean I couldn't pick it up quickly irrespective of whether I was 14 or 41 (which is my point)... whether I's care too or not is another matter entirely and that caring whether or not to is not age specific either. A job is worth X, where the job is really worth X minus the expectations/caveats of the employer. As most of you freely admit, you are without a clue as to whether the person in front of you is capable because of your perception of that person. It's your perception that's getting in the way, and now it's the govt's perception getting in the way. Age should not be a factor, similar to gender, colour etc... I agree that you are using indicators and your experience to make a judgement, but you don't know for sure and won't know for sure unless you try (by the way, that trying is a 2 way street :innocent:).

It would seem that some are happy to trade 20+ for 16/17 when there's money in it (yes I get why), at the expense of the 20+ I might add, when it suits you. Yet nothing changes other than the amount of money paid out, as there'll still be the same perceived useless 16/17 yr olds and the same 27 yr old that has a greater chance of success (bullshit, cough cough, bullshit). Make your minds up :innocent:, are they too young or are they too expensive at the moment?

Oscar

11th October 2012, 08:21

The Bigger picture is the government is just about to print money to try and fix a mess ,

What a load of bollox.
The Govt. has repeatedly ruled out "Quantitative Easing" after the whackos in the Green Party suggested it.

Notwithstanding that, what would it achieve? Short term reduction in the value of our currency, higher interest rates and inflation. Higher interest rates attract overseas investors, who buy NZ$ to invest with, causing the currency to gain value...

The bottom line is that at the moment the NZ Govt. has very little control over the value of the NZ$. The NZ$ is high because the US$ is low.

Banditbandit

11th October 2012, 10:42

You're one of the smart ones. The sad reality is that not everyone is that smart, and those that aren't tend to go to the workforce as soon as they could. In that situation, despite the increased opportunities (see my post) they are now worth "less" than previously due to the new regulation. And since they are not that smart, they can't see the bigger picture. They can only see the negative side and starts compl.........ooo, I get it now :facepalm:

Fuck - if he's a smart one I'd hate to see the rest - I wouldn't pay that illiterate twat minimum wage for shitting ... but then again, almost all the know-alls here seem to be illiterate twats ...

mashman

11th October 2012, 10:50

scott411

11th October 2012, 11:23

I know I really shouldn't, but... the UK injected 325 billion of their UK pounds into their economy and I see no evidence of economic shock. Do you have any figures to backup the quantitive easing theory that JK has said is madness? Here's mine from a simple search (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1586103/Inflation--Interest-rates--Economic-growth--Unemployment-Latest-statistics.html)

the UK had a double dip recession that we did not have, they had also had their OCR near 0%, they had nothing left, i spent 6 months in the UK last year and they are in way deeper than we are, we have not had to do the massive spending cuts that the Brits and some Euro nations have had to,

our dollar is high because everyone else is still in recession, we are growing again (and out interest rates are relativly high still), with the exception of the Aussie Mining boom (the States without mining are not well) we are doing better than most of our 1st world trading partners,

as for people thinking Aussie is the be all and end all, if you want to go live in the middle of the desert, doing 2 week or longer stints on 12 hour days, then their is money to be made, but you have to give up your lifestyle you have at the moment, some people can go and put thier heads down and make money for a few years and then invest the gains to come back for a lifestyle, some get stuck in the spend everything you earn category to the point where a heap of the Aussie fly in and fly out workers are setting up in Phuket or Bali and living thier on the months off, because Perth is to expensive, and its only a 4 hour flight up to Asia,

Oscar

11th October 2012, 11:34

Banditbandit

11th October 2012, 13:47

Your search was very simple indeed.
The UK's economy is contracting. Our is growing.

Perhaps you should search the Weimar Republic and see what printing money achieved.

Let me see .. I am no economist ... but if an economy is shrinking, then there is too much money in it ... (fewer trade goods to buy = surplus money) and in a growing economy the oppositie is true .. growing trade goods with not enough money to purchase them ...

So, for us simpletons and non-economists .. (who have a small amount of knowledge of economix) it is, of course, very bad to print money in a shrinking economy ..but in a growing economy surely it is the answer ... (And no, I'm not a Green party member .. fucking wimping liberals .. scratch a liberal, find a conservative ...) but surely there should be enough moey in an ecomomy to purchase the goods availabel in the economy? If there is not enough money then there is a surplus of trade goods (which will not be selling) and the price comes down (basic supply and demand) Oh .. right .. that;s why the big retailers are having so many sales .. the prices comes down !!!

Oscar

11th October 2012, 14:00

Let me see .. I am no economist ... but if an economy is shrinking, then there is too much money in it ... (fewer trade goods to buy = surplus money) and in a growing economy the oppositie is true .. growing trade goods with not enough money to purchase them ...

So, for us simpletons and non-economists .. (who have a small amount of knowledge of economix) it is, of course, very bad to print money in a shrinking economy ..but in a growing economy surely it is the answer ... (And no, I'm not a Green party member .. fucking wimping liberals .. scratch a liberal, find a conservative ...) but surely there should be enough moey in an ecomomy to purchase the goods availabel in the economy? If there is not enough money then there is a surplus of trade goods (which will not be selling) and the price comes down (basic supply and demand) Oh .. right .. that;s why the big retailers are having so many sales .. the prices comes down !!!

Ignoring your comment about a shrinking economy having too much money in it, which is just silly, the whole Quantative Easing theory is based on a fallacy : our exchange rate is too high and we can do something about it. The reason our currency is high is because the currencies we measure it against are weak.

As for your comment about not enough money for surplus goods - if you print more money, then the money you use to pay for those goods is worth less, so the price goes up...how is that a good idea?

Brian d marge

11th October 2012, 14:09

Fuck - if he's a smart one I'd hate to see the rest - I wouldn't pay that illiterate twat minimum wage for shitting ... but then again, almost all the know-alls here seem to be illiterate twats ...

I really hope that’s not me you are inferring to. This "illiterate twat " know more in his little finger than you can string together full stop , This "illiterate twat has spent countless hour looking into how and why these thing are the way they are , this " illiterate twat" has laboured his way through " the road to serfdom " ,and , Isaiah Berlins 2 concepts etc to try and understand how and why ...

Some one here cant grasps the basics , and because their little rowboat seems to be falling apart , resort to cheap throwaway line that just highlights the failure of their remedial reading classes.

If by your post your are indeed inferring, I am the "illiterate twat ", then that a pretty high bench mark for others to aspire to .

Stephen

Brian d marge

11th October 2012, 14:21

What a load of bollox.
The Govt. has repeatedly ruled out "Quantitative Easing" after the whackos in the Green Party suggested it.

Notwithstanding that, what would it achieve? Short term reduction in the value of our currency, higher interest rates and inflation. Higher interest rates attract overseas investors, who buy NZ$ to invest with, causing the currency to gain value...

The bottom line is that at the moment the NZ Govt. has very little control over the value of the NZ$. The NZ$ is high because the US$ is low.

sod me Im almost agreeing, my bad I didnt know it was the greens, it was on national radio and yes its a bad idea. a better idea is what I posted before

we are in a post Financial Crisis world with significant debt concerns for the US, Continental Europe, UK and Japan. Interest rates in those countries are abnormally low and monetary policy settings, including quantitative easing, are far from normal. This has depressed those currencies relative to the value of the NZ dollar.

NZ’s terms of trade are at an elevated level. NZ’s terms of trade are largely driven by commodity prices, since commodities make up the bulk of NZ’s exports. Commodity prices are a key driver of the NZ dollar so it is not surprising that NZ has a very strong exchange rate in an environment of very strong commodity prices.
snip;
Agriculture and construction were the stand-out sectors posting q/q gains of 4.7% and 3.3% respectively

a post from the illiterati

Stephen

Banditbandit

11th October 2012, 14:30

I really hope that’s not me you are inferring to. This "illiterate twat " know more in his little finger than you can string together full stop , This "illiterate twat has spent countless hour looking into how and why these thing are the way they are , this " illiterate twat" has laboured his way through " the road to serfdom " ,and , Isaiah Berlins 2 concepts etc to try and understand how and why ...

Some one here cant grasps the basics , and because their little rowboat seems to be falling apart , resort to cheap throwaway line that just highlights the failure of their remedial reading classes.

If by your post your are indeed inferring, I am the "illiterate twat ", then that a pretty high bench mark for others to aspire to .

Stephen

Yes and Yes .. I have employed people in a previous role - I do not have that responsibility at the moment ... In my previous role the ability to write whole sentences which made sense, with good grammer and punctuation, was a basic requirement of the job. A person who wrote in the way that you do here would not even be shortlisted ... no matter what else you thought you knew ... or thought you could do

And no, I don't have the basics of economics .. never studied, never will .. and numbers make bugger all sense to me ... my questions are a genuine attempt to understand what I currently know little about ...

Brian d marge

11th October 2012, 14:55

Yes and Yes .. I have employed people in a previous role - I do not have that responsibility at the moment ... In my previous role the ability to write whole sentences which made sense, with good grammer and punctuation, was a basic requirement of the job. A person who wrote in the way that you do here would not even be shortlisted ... no matter what else you thought you knew ... or thought you could do

And no, I don't have the basics of economics .. never studied, never will .. and numbers make bugger all sense to me ... my questions are a genuine attempt to understand what I currently know little about ...

this is a different medium than you are used to , You may find that , that the style of writing may have changed. Like it or not.

In my current job the need to use a computer to find the stresses and deflection, to run simulations on parts. different worlds

Not having a grasp on economics, then saying never studied and never will.

Pot, kettle I think .

Stephen

HenryDorsetCase

11th October 2012, 15:22

Well you know, we arent actually a sovereign nation any more, Key jumping to the MPAA's call amply demonstrated that, then going to give rimjobs to hollywood fatcats. So grinding down the peasants to pay for it, its the Mrkn way.

mashman

11th October 2012, 16:19

the UK had a double dip recession that we did not have, they had also had their OCR near 0%, they had nothing left, i spent 6 months in the UK last year and they are in way deeper than we are, we have not had to do the massive spending cuts that the Brits and some Euro nations have had to,

our dollar is high because everyone else is still in recession, we are growing again (and out interest rates are relativly high still), with the exception of the Aussie Mining boom (the States without mining are not well) we are doing better than most of our 1st world trading partners,

as for people thinking Aussie is the be all and end all, if you want to go live in the middle of the desert, doing 2 week or longer stints on 12 hour days, then their is money to be made, but you have to give up your lifestyle you have at the moment, some people can go and put thier heads down and make money for a few years and then invest the gains to come back for a lifestyle, some get stuck in the spend everything you earn category to the point where a heap of the Aussie fly in and fly out workers are setting up in Phuket or Bali and living thier on the months off, because Perth is to expensive, and its only a 4 hour flight up to Asia,

I understand that it's bad over in the UK as I still have many family over there... yet somehow they have still been able to pile $700 billion, give or take, into their economy without incurring the wrath of the gods of economics. If that is because their economy isn't growing and that growth means that you are unallowed to print money, then why didn't we do that when we weren't growing given our need to borrow 50 billion per year? Given the size, population distance and their neighbours it's hardly surprising that they're feeling it more than NZ. I still don't fully understand hyperinflation given that, essentially, the world prints more money on a daily basis to keep up with the new demand without incurring the wrath of the economics gods. there must be a secrets somewhere, almost as though there needs to be a need for the money.

Your search was very simple indeed.
The UK's economy is contracting. Our is growing.

Perhaps you should search the Weimar Republic and see what printing money achieved.

What is the difference between the money printers printing money every day and QE in tough times?

Brian d marge

11th October 2012, 16:58

What is the difference between the money printers printing money every day and QE in tough times?

One is done by Government the other by banks , One good the other bad

Stephen

price of bread back in the day

<tbody>

December 1918

0.5

December 1921

4

December 1922

163

January 1923

250

March 1923

463

June 1923

1,465

July 1923

3,465

August 1923

69,000

September 1923

1,512,000

October 1923

1,743,000,000

November 1923

201,000,000,000

</tbody>

scumdog

11th October 2012, 17:11

If by your post your are indeed inferring, I am the "illiterate twat ", then that a pretty high bench mark for others to aspire to .

Stephen

So why aren't they getting there??

Brian d marge

11th October 2012, 17:51

So why aren't they getting there??
I blame the parents and the lack of books in the home

Stephen

mashman

11th October 2012, 18:10

So why aren't they getting there??

I blame the pigs curtailing our freedom man

One is done by Government the other by banks , One good the other bad

How does the money from each find its way into the system?

Brian d marge

11th October 2012, 18:19

I blame the pigs curtailing our freedom man

How does the money from each find its way into the system?

you borrow, they borrow .we spend , they give themselves pay rises .

Stephen

Akzle

11th October 2012, 18:38

Which evens the playing field, at the moment who would get hired first; a 16yo high school dropout (I think at 16 there would be no chance they would have gone through 7th form right?) or a 20yo who has been working for a year or two with a reference etc. Bit of a no brainer I would think, unless the 16yo is cheaper!

Also, who can't manage to live on the 10.20per hour? after tax that will still be over 350 per week, if us students can do it on 240, why can't they do it for more?
i doubt students would have to pay to travel to "work" each day. also, copying someone elses notes, watching porn and drinking doesn't require quite the calories that a proper job does...

This is life,,,it has nothing to do with white mother fuckers,,,get used to it.
everything is somehow a white motherfucker's fault.:D

Now, in a parallel universe with lower minimum wage for young workers, if that means I can save some money and I know cashflow is important for me for the next 6 months, I'd probably think the young one is worth a try. This way the young one might end up getting work experience (which does not involve peddling drugs on the street) while the older one may end up getting a better job that properly uses his current experience.

Seriously, c'mon people....
you're highly optimistic... i doubt that the well qualified, incredibly good looking, fantastic employee would find a job anywhere else...

Whats your point mashman, either way round, he would have gained 2 years experience at the job... In fact Brett re iterates my point.. at 16 I was paid 12 quid a week about half of what my school mates got working in 'low skill' type employment, by 21 (5 yrs later) I was earning DOUBLE what they could at adult wage rates..... But I can assure you, your average txt speaking, attitude ridden, (i aint gunna make the tea, clean out that machine, sweep the floor) fuckwit wouldnt even get into the trade (engineering) cuz they kuldnt komprehnd unglish langwadge an do maf's. Trust me when you are working out relief angles for form tooling, reading a blueprint with tolerances of 2/10 of a thousandth of an inch (average piece of paper is 6 thou, thick to give you an idea how minuscule that is) on ground surfaces. Or, reading a complex plan or formulae/calculation requirement. Ya kunt txt yur mate or ask the 4man if yu can use yur laptop.
easy as shit with a surface grinder. bet you got a readout and all....

...double dip recession...OCR near 0%,... massive spending...

our dollar is high because everyone else is still in recession, we are growing ... interest rates ... trading partners,

there's a common theme here. money. it fucks shit up.

bogan

11th October 2012, 18:44

i doubt students would have to pay to travel to "work" each day. also, copying someone elses notes, watching porn and drinking doesn't require quite the calories that a proper job does...

After reading your posts it doesn't surprise me you are unfamiliar with academic institutions :shifty: The flip side of that is, I doubt 16yos would have to pay full rent if they still live with their parents.

A lower wages simply gives young 'uns more chances to prove they are worth more. IMO simply allowing them to demand more doesn't help long term.

GrayWolf

11th October 2012, 22:29

i doubt students would have to pay to travel to "work" each day. also, copying someone elses notes, watching porn and drinking doesn't require quite the calories that a proper job does...

everything is somehow a white motherfucker's fault.:D

you're highly optimistic... i doubt that the well qualified, incredibly good looking, fantastic employee would find a job anywhere else...

But I can assure you, your average txt speaking, attitude ridden, (i aint gunna make the tea, clean out that machine, sweep the floor) fuckwit wouldnt even get into the trade (engineering) cuz they kuldnt komprehnd unglish langwadge an do maf's. Trust me when you are working out relief angles for form tooling, reading a blueprint with tolerances of 2/10 of a thousandth of an inch (average piece of paper is 6 thou, thick to give you an idea how minuscule that is) on ground surfaces. Or, reading a complex plan or formulae/calculation requirement. Ya kunt txt yur mate or ask the 4man if yu can use yur laptop.
easy as shit with a surface grinder. bet you got a readout and all....

there's a common theme here. money. it fucks shit up.

Damn you are good, Legal expert capable of argueing in court over points of law, Economist, Business guru AND now you're an expert in toolmaking......
BTW no it wasnt a surface grinder for form tooling...... a Wickman Schrivener OPG. and 2/10's on a Jones Shipman surface grinder is possible, as long as the bed was kept ground in regular and you used a toolmakers 'magnetic block' for small items. but not easy as shit!!!! But then obviously I couldnt have been as skilled as you.....

Brian d marge

12th October 2012, 00:31

i would use ( and can) a hand scraper...and some blue

easy as.........

stephen

Brett

12th October 2012, 12:17

Brett

12th October 2012, 12:19

And if you had have left school at 14 and had worked hard etc... you would have been earning at 16 what you were earning at 20.

No, because with that age differentiation came a) an education earned while working full time (studied full time as well) and b) the maturity that *usually* only come with both age and life experiences. Leaving school at 14, I would have been both mentally and educationally unprepared. For example, as a teenager I struggled with finishing the things that I started, ,this changed in my later years as I started to develop a very strong drive to be successful in everything that I did.

Brett

12th October 2012, 12:24

Whats your point mashman, either way round, he would have gained 2 years experience at the job... In fact Brett re iterates my point.. at 16 I was paid 12 quid a week about half of what my school mates got working in 'low skill' type employment, by 21 (5 yrs later) I was earning DOUBLE what they could at adult wage rates..... But I can assure you, your average txt speaking, attitude ridden, (i aint gunna make the tea, clean out that machine, sweep the floor) fuckwit wouldnt even get into the trade (engineering) cuz they kuldnt komprehnd unglish langwadge an do maf's. Trust me when you are working out relief angles for form tooling, reading a blueprint with tolerances of 2/10 of a thousandth of an inch (average piece of paper is 6 thou, thick to give you an idea how minuscule that is) on ground surfaces. Or, reading a complex plan or formulae/calculation requirement. Ya kunt txt yur mate or ask the 4man if yu can use yur laptop.

I have a shit load of respect for tooling engineers. Very cool job, making some awesome shit. My first job was also strongly technical, although more management related...however I remember in the first 6 months spending a lot of time doing low brow work proving myself.

On that note...as a 13 year old, my very first job was hot water blasting rubbish trucks on a Saturday morning! Which then progressed onto sweeping the floors of a panel beaters shop before moving on to learning some basic panel beating skills (great for a 16 year old into cars in a big way!) These jobs taught me skills, largely attitude related, that helped me immensely in my first full time employment and also when I moved into the more professional worlds of project management and business consulting.

Brian d marge

12th October 2012, 16:55

Haha...sounding pretty communist there mate!
I do actually have a copy of the little red book, and in the first chapter it does make a bit of sense ...then it kinda rants and raves ...
unfortunately all political ideas have some good points and bad , ours is just as bad as comunjizim, ( ours uses game theory to quantify , which leads to a equilibrium without ideals)
and as for school dinners.....when I was young school dinners were a crime against humanity....I remember custard that had qualities unknown to science....:::

Stephen......

mashman

12th October 2012, 17:34

No, because with that age differentiation came a) an education earned while working full time (studied full time as well) and b) the maturity that *usually* only come with both age and life experiences. Leaving school at 14, I would have been both mentally and educationally unprepared. For example, as a teenager I struggled with finishing the things that I started, ,this changed in my later years as I started to develop a very strong drive to be successful in everything that I did.

A) you would have received that same education, just at an earlier age.
B) what does maturity have to do with the ability to do a job?

You may well have been mentally and educationally prepared, but I would venture that given that you only needed to learn that which helped you do your job, that you would have caught up pretty damned quickly. Perhaps as a teenager you hadn't decided what you wanted to do, therefore you didn't finish what seemed like a good idea to start? As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, if I knew then what I know now, my age would not be a barrier to me achieving that I wanted to do. Plenty of teens finish what they WANT to. Plenty of teens don't finish what they wanted to when they find something better that they'd prefer to do. There are plenty of adults out there that that applies to too and they've had all of the experience necessary, according to you, to be able to do anything. Age isn't the barrier that you guys make it out to be, in fact the attitude that you can't because you're young is likely much more damaging. It's a shame that some people can't see this. Kids are capable of much more than you can possibly imagine. Yes, in general: they have an attitude problem at times, they have minimal life experience, they have a lower level of education, they don't know what they want to do and likely many many many more yes's... BUT, that does not mean that they're incapable of undertaking tasks that an older "apprentice" can in a very similar amount of time. So I disagree with you about as strongly as I can in regards to their talent and ability and it fucks me right off that people believe that they are financially worth less than the minimum wage because of poor reasoning and stupid preconceptions in regards to ability.

Akzle

13th October 2012, 18:20

Damn you are good, Legal expert capable of argueing in court over points of law, Economist, Business guru AND now you're an expert in toolmaking......
BTW no it wasnt a surface grinder for form tooling...... a Wickman Schrivener OPG. and 2/10's on a Jones Shipman surface grinder is possible, as long as the bed was kept ground in regular and you used a toolmakers 'magnetic block' for small items. but not easy as shit!!!! But then obviously I couldnt have been as skilled as you.....

no expert, but a few years of engineering up my arse... err, sleeve.
but right you are sir, damn, i AM good.

Brett

13th October 2012, 21:53

I do actually have a copy of the little red book, and in the first chapter it does make a bit of sense ...then it kinda rants and raves ...
unfortunately all political ideas have some good points and bad , ours is just as bad as comunjizim, ( ours uses game theory to quantify , which leads to a equilibrium without ideals)
and as for school dinners.....when I was young school dinners were a crime against humanity....I remember custard that had qualities unknown to science....:::

Stephen......

I hear you Stephen. Gotta love economic game theory....lovely in the theoretical world.

Brett

13th October 2012, 22:02

A) you would have received that same education, just at an earlier age.
B) what does maturity have to do with the ability to do a job?

You may well have been mentally and educationally prepared, but I would venture that given that you only needed to learn that which helped you do your job, that you would have caught up pretty damned quickly. Perhaps as a teenager you hadn't decided what you wanted to do, therefore you didn't finish what seemed like a good idea to start? As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, if I knew then what I know now, my age would not be a barrier to me achieving that I wanted to do. Plenty of teens finish what they WANT to. Plenty of teens don't finish what they wanted to when they find something better that they'd prefer to do. There are plenty of adults out there that that applies to too and they've had all of the experience necessary, according to you, to be able to do anything. Age isn't the barrier that you guys make it out to be, in fact the attitude that you can't because you're young is likely much more damaging. It's a shame that some people can't see this. Kids are capable of much more than you can possibly imagine. Yes, in general: they have an attitude problem at times, they have minimal life experience, they have a lower level of education, they don't know what they want to do and likely many many many more yes's... BUT, that does not mean that they're incapable of undertaking tasks that an older "apprentice" can in a very similar amount of time. So I disagree with you about as strongly as I can in regards to their talent and ability and it fucks me right off that people believe that they are financially worth less than the minimum wage because of poor reasoning and stupid preconceptions in regards to ability.

A)Then to apply your logic, a 10 year old is capable of doing the work of an adult?? There's a reason that we don't teach primary schools...for example, theoretical physics...the brain needs to be trained to learn, and to develop then necessary pathways.

B) Everything. Attitude to work has EVERYTHING to do with ones ability to work. Age isn't usually the problem, it's the attitude that the age group seems to have. This isn't intended to be a blanket statement, there are of course exceptions (and probably a lot of them!). My two best mates are cases in point, they left school at age 15, went into apprenticeships and picked it up straight away, progressing on to become successful trademan. However, to begin with ...they cost their employers money while they were trained up (ability to produce/deliver a service). Within a reasonably short time frame this situation was reversed as they learned skills, and thus got paid more.
I don't necessarily believe that young people are worth less than minimum wage, but at least it (in theory) should promote more employers to take on young people. As someone who has employed a reasonable number of people, including school leavers, over the past few years I can say completely honestly that when I find someone good, with a good work ethic and skills to match, I will happily pay them well for their services.

ducatilover

13th October 2012, 22:14

I don't see the big hulla-balloo, really.

What fucks me off is retarded politician wankers telling us every stupid decision they make will create jobs

Why is unemployment high?
The only thing that has created jobs recently is the ChCh quakes, and they also destroyed many jobs.

I need beer
I'm unbeerable like this
Beerly functioning

FJRider

13th October 2012, 22:31

The only thing that has created jobs recently is the ChCh quakes, and they also destroyed many jobs.

But it didn't create the jobs everybody that is unemployed ... WANT ...

Like ...

1. minimum $20 per hour.
2. minimum hours actually working per week. (0)
3. maximum hours paid per week. (80 ... flexable here, can be paid for more)
4. job MUST come with a (4WD) vehicle. (and fuel card)
5. must be in charge of at least five other people that actually do the work.
6. automatic pay-rise after the first week. (can be sooner)

ducatilover

13th October 2012, 22:37

blue rider

13th October 2012, 23:03

But it didn't create the jobs everybody that is unemployed ... WANT ...

Like ...

1. minimum $20 per hour.
2. minimum hours actually working per week. (0)
3. maximum hours paid per week. (80 ... flexable here, can be paid for more)
4. job MUST come with a (4WD) vehicle. (and fuel card)
5. must be in charge of at least five other people that actually do the work.
6. automatic pay-rise after the first week. (can be sooner)

i guess a lot would be happy to just find a job, at a couple of dollars above minimum wage as tenting is not really an option and rent alone in most places of NZ will eat up a weekly income if paid minimum wage only.

I guess a lot would be happy to have the overhours paid, that they are not getting paid because their on weekly salaries and any overtime is dontated to the well being of the company....this applies to quite a bit of back office staff, but I would assume that it just applies to jobs in general. Or the overhours one might work, to keep a job.

I guess a lot would be happy to be paid for the jobs they are doing, inclusive any responsability for staff, even if it is not part of their job, and because it is not part of their job description they are not getting it paid.

i guess a lot would be happy to just receive a pay - rise that keeps up with the increases everyday Joe and Jane Ordinary has been experiencing lately.

what I am saying is that after several years in which the only employemnt headlines are the ones about jobs lost, we might want to just give credit to the New Zealander of all shades and ages, and just for once ask where the jobs are .....especially those that actually pays a living wage.

But maybe its just cheaper to accuse others that one does not know of lazyness, unreadyness, unwillingness etc, than really just admitting that the jobs that are needed to keep the economy going, and the jobs that are needed to provide peoply with a living wage are not created.

And it is surely cheaper for businesses that pay minimum wage only, to have their staffs wages supplemented by the various benefits said staff will apply for, i.e. housing benefint, food aid, etc, than to actually pay them a living wage.

FJRider

13th October 2012, 23:26

i guess a lot would be happy to just find a job.

On the TradeMe Jobs for Christchurch alone ... 2166 jobs (all categorys) listed as available now.

On the first page alone ... unskilled workers wanted with a starting rate of $17 an hour.

Maybe ... I guess ... a lot don't want to work.

Brian d marge

14th October 2012, 00:01

On the TradeMe Jobs for Christchurch alone ... 2166 jobs (all categorys) listed as available now.

On the first page alone ... unskilled workers wanted with a starting rate of $17 an hour.

Maybe ... I guess ... a lot don't want to work.
the key word there is Christchurch

I live in Auckland

Stephen

mashman

14th October 2012, 08:26

A)Then to apply your logic, a 10 year old is capable of doing the work of an adult?? There's a reason that we don't teach primary schools...for example, theoretical physics...the brain needs to be trained to learn, and to develop then necessary pathways.

B) Everything. Attitude to work has EVERYTHING to do with ones ability to work. Age isn't usually the problem, it's the attitude that the age group seems to have. This isn't intended to be a blanket statement, there are of course exceptions (and probably a lot of them!). My two best mates are cases in point, they left school at age 15, went into apprenticeships and picked it up straight away, progressing on to become successful trademan. However, to begin with ...they cost their employers money while they were trained up (ability to produce/deliver a service). Within a reasonably short time frame this situation was reversed as they learned skills, and thus got paid more.
I don't necessarily believe that young people are worth less than minimum wage, but at least it (in theory) should promote more employers to take on young people. As someone who has employed a reasonable number of people, including school leavers, over the past few years I can say completely honestly that when I find someone good, with a good work ethic and skills to match, I will happily pay them well for their services.

1) They once did (likely still do in some country's around the world). The reason we don't teach the "heavy shit" at primary school is because they have to gain a broad cross section of knowledge according to the curriculum and educational policy set. I have no doubt that if you start teaching physics to kids that they'll pick it up quickly enough if it is their sole subject of study or if they're really interested in it. At the end of the day we'll learn about any given subject to the point where we don't want to learn any more. Whilst I agree that the learning curve for kids is probably much steeper based on an older person having gone through the education system, that's still no guarantee that the speed at which the pair of them learn a given subject will be that different.

potato) Attitude isn't everything at all. Being able to do the job is. In some cases that may require a certain attitude, but one doesn't necessarily need to follow the other. In other words I can still do my job irrespective of my attitude towards it because I have the skills to do it, but I'm still the same useless arsehole. The unfortunate thing is that as these young folk take up available jobs there are slightly older folk that are being priced out of the market and if that's the case then it's profit over experience/knowledge/perceived ability and not necessarily hiring the right person for the job. I have no doubt that there are some fantastic employers out there that will "pay" on ability and for no other reason... and if every employer used that as the yard stick for how they pay their staff, then we wouldn't need this legislation.

FJRider

14th October 2012, 08:30

the key word there is Christchurch

I live in Auckland

Stephen

My point is ...

Why is there an uproar about the number of people from overseas brought in to do the work in Christchurch ... and taking the jobs that Christchurch people can do. And a large number of jobs still available ... together with a large number of unemployed ... ???

Along with the youth bitching ... they cant live on $10 an hour. There's plenty of work that's paying well above that ...

Only 4327 jobs available in the Auckland area. On the first page ... a person wanted to waterblast houses, vehicle supplied (with fuel card) and work supplied. Sound like you ... ???

Nova.

14th October 2012, 08:57

meh.
not worried I'm 17, already have a full time job.

blue rider

14th October 2012, 09:20

My point is ...

Why is there an uproar about the number of people from overseas brought in to do the work in Christchurch ... and taking the jobs that Christchurch people can do. And a large number of jobs still available ... together with a large number of unemployed ... ???

Along with the youth bitching ... they cant live on $10 an hour. There's plenty of work that's paying well above that ...

Only 4327 jobs available in the Auckland area. On the first page ... a person wanted to waterblast houses, vehicle supplied (with fuel card) and work supplied. Sound like you ... ???

- My understanding is that the Jobs in Christchurch are highly specialised, engineers etc....and you can't find them just everywhere.

- Youth will be paid 10.50 now regardless of the work they do, as business have been given the green light by Government. This of course will never be abused by businesses.

oft the 2522 Jobs in Canterbury on Tradem (25 pages) - only the first page relates to new postings (last 3 days). At page 10 the jobs 21 Sept.....How relevant and how updated is the Trade me job page?

of the 11723 jobs for everywhere in NZ only the first 8 pages relate to current and last weeks jobs.

and the first job for Auckland is selling Water Coolers B2B not waterblasting.

I can't understand why what is obvious is not discussed, namely that the numbers of jobs lost over the last couple of years, in manufacturing, warehousing, food production etc. have not been replaced.
The jobs that have been lost in Finance, Banking, Real Estate, have not been replaced either. And the future lost jobs will not be replaced with anything, if there is not a change in attitude of our government.

Last month roughly about 2000 people in Huntly, Invercargill, and other places around NZ have lost their jobs, due to restructuring, closure of plants etc. These jobs will not be replaced and this is what causes the malaise.

But maybe you are right and all these jobless people are lazy good'for'nothings...however they are also our neighbourghs, relatives and friends.

Ocean1

14th October 2012, 09:50

- My understanding is that the Jobs in Christchurch are highly specialised, engineers etc....and you can't find them just everywhere.
Certainly not for $10:50 an hour.

That’s one of the reasons they became engineers in the first place. Why didn’t some of the jobseekers take that option?

Youth will be paid 10.50 now regardless of the work they do, as business have been given the green light by Government. This of course will never be abused by businesses.

For years NZ employers have not been able to fill jobs that were perfectly viable at $10.50 an hour, but would lose them money if they had to pay more. All the bleating about the NZ worker’s low income misses exactly the same point: if their work was worth more then they’d be paid more. In an open market any business that did underpay their workers wouldn’t keep them long, they’d be off to better jobs.

I can't understand why what is obvious is not discussed, namely that the numbers of jobs lost over the last couple of years, in manufacturing, warehousing, food production etc. have not been replaced.
The jobs that have been lost in Finance, Banking, Real Estate, have not been replaced either. And the future lost jobs will not be replaced with anything, if there is not a change in attitude of our government.

The jobs lost over the last couple of years in manufacturing, warehousing, food production etc have been those that failed to generate enough income to pay their wages. Happens from time to time, as markets wax and wane. Occasionally it’s caused by poor management, or poor productivity, and where that’s the case some competitor invariably fills that market space.
And don’t look to government to create jobs, govt jobs don’t generate ANY of the value required to pay their wages. In fact every public service job requires the taxes taken from about three real jobs to sustain it, and adds zero value to the economy in the process. So if you’re looking for changes in attitude to create jobs look to those that believe their work is worth more than anyone’s willing to pay for it.

FJRider

14th October 2012, 10:10

... But maybe you are right and all these jobless people are lazy good'for'nothings...however they are also our neighbourghs, relatives and friends.

Firms like Tradestaff have openings for unskilled workers they can't fill.

Sitting at home trolling the internet situations vacant sites wont always get you a job. Getting out there and asking those firms working ... will. Those that can't be bothered ... won't.

Christchurch has a need for unskilled hard workers too. (long hours with good money) The employment agencies would be the first stop for job seekers. Only desperate business's advertise for labourers. (then have to troll through the thousand E.mails and texts that arrive in ... )

In ANY area ... beat the feet and ASK. Knock on doors ... door to door. It takes time and inclination.

But it works.

Some employers may exploit the youth rates ... and struggle to recruit staff. Or just recruit idiots. Their loss. They suffer then too.

I said the first page of the Auckland area ... NOT the first JOB.

I'm 54 ... My CV is filled with the various occupations I've taken since I left school. Most completely different lines of work from the last. Some similar ... but different. If I can change ... why cant others. Sure it means starting all over again. But it IS starting. My previous (and varied) work history (and length of time spent with those firms) stands me well in job searching. Times have change ... few can stay in the same line of work throughout their working life ... in the same area ... anymore.

Perhaps people in Huntly and Invercargill should move where work IS. (as if they need another excuse to move)

Peoples attitudes on what they do ... and where they do it (in regards to employment) needs to change. Expecting the Goverment to "create" jobs ... just wont happen. And they WILL make the benefit of staying on the Benefit ... that much more difficult. That you can bet on.

blue rider

14th October 2012, 10:13

Certainly not for $10:50 an hour.

That’s one of the reasons they became engineers in the first place. Why didn’t some of the jobseekers take that option?

For years NZ employers have not been able to fill jobs that were perfectly viable at $10.50 an hour, but would lose them money if they had to pay more. All the bleating about the NZ worker’s low income misses exactly the same point: if their work was worth more then they’d be paid more. In an open market any business that did underpay their workers wouldn’t keep them long, they’d be off to better jobs.

The jobs lost over the last couple of years in manufacturing, warehousing, food production etc have been those that failed to generate enough income to pay their wages. Happens from time to time, as markets wax and wane. Occasionally it’s caused by poor management, or poor productivity, and where that’s the case some competitor invariably fills that market space.
And don’t look to government to create jobs, govt jobs don’t generate ANY of the value required to pay their wages. In fact every public service job requires the taxes taken from about three real jobs to sustain it, and adds zero value to the economy in the process. So if you’re looking for changes in attitude to create jobs look to those that believe their work is worth more than anyone’s willing to pay for it.

1. because really they were crap at Math, and did not have the forsight 20 years ago to study engineering and score a job in CHCH today?

2. perfectly viable, like what....at what stage becomes a job perfectly viable at 10:50$ an hour, and are you then OK with the people earning this amount to go and apply for housing benefits, and other financial and non finacial aid to meet the end of the month.

3. not looking at goverment for anything...the current one is not even able to remember what they did yesterday (can we fire them for incompetence?), however at what stage do we expect the government to do something for the country it is supposeldy governing.

4. Government Jobs don't create value? Roads.....Hospitals.....Schools.....etc..OK.then.

None of what you said did answer my question raised, if the jobs lost are not replaced, a. what do we do and b. whom do be blame.

at the moment it seems that we do a. nothing and b. blame the poor schmuck who just lost his job.

AllanB

14th October 2012, 10:20

Young people. They expect everything handed to them on a plate at top pay.

FJRider

14th October 2012, 11:15

1. because really they were crap at Math, and did not have the forsight 20 years ago to study engineering and score a job in CHCH today?

I got 32% correct in School Cert Maths. (on the second attempt ... the 1st I won't give the result) I struggled over the years to understand some math problems my work required me to know. Extra evening tutoring helped. Plenty of dirty hands jobs in Christchurch going.

2. perfectly viable, like what....at what stage becomes a job perfectly viable at 10:50$ an hour, and are you then OK with the people earning this amount to go and apply for housing benefits, and other financial and non finacial aid to meet the end of the month.

It pays more than the dole ... which the 16-18 year olds (living at home) cant get. Those flipping burgers or on the checkout counters after school/weekends (weekly hours worked in single digits) will seldom expect to be still doing it full time 20 years later ... will they... ???

3. not looking at goverment for anything...the current one is not even able to remember what they did yesterday (can we fire them for incompetence?), however at what stage do we expect the government to do something for the country it is supposeldy governing.

Ask not what your goverment can do for you ... Ask what you ...(you know the rest ...)

4. Government Jobs don't create value? Roads.....Hospitals.....Schools.....etc..OK.then.

Jobs in those sectors already have vacancies ... and they need experienced people with qualifications.

None of what you said did answer my question raised, if the jobs lost are not replaced, a. what do we do and b. whom do be blame.

Find OTHER work. And if you cant ... blame yourself for not having the ability to find work you can do. A novel idea I know ... and probably won't catch on ...

At the moment it seems that we do a. nothing and b. blame the poor schmuck who just lost his job.

a. We all have problems keeping our own jobs.
b. Are the reasons those "poor schmucks" are loosing their jobs ... always the same reasons ... ???

Or maybe they just never gave their employers a (GOOD) reason to keep them employed. But that would be the goverments fault too ... right ... ??

Ocean1

14th October 2012, 11:15

1. because really they were crap at Math, and did not have the forsight 20 years ago to study engineering and score a job in CHCH today?

So, they recognised early that they didn't have the ability to earn higher wages? Or just couldn't be fukt going out of their way to make themselves worth more?

2. perfectly viable, like what....at what stage becomes a job perfectly viable at 10:50$ an hour, and are you then OK with the people earning this amount to go and apply for housing benefits, and other financial and non finacial aid to meet the end of the month.

When it earns the company more than it costs, of course. Including ACC levies, holiday pay, income tax, sick leave provisions, etc, etc... currently in fact about 170%, or $18/hr. As for benefits, in the case of someone who's temporarily and unforseeably short of cash I'm happy paying whatever's required to supliment their wages up to that required to meet an acceptable standard of living. Acceptable to me, that is. For those who chose not to add value to their skillset when they had a chance: not. For those currently attempting to add value to their skillset I'm OK with providing them with free training.

3. not looking at goverment for anything...the current one is not even able to remember what they did yesterday (can we fire them for incompetence?), however at what stage do we expect the government to do something for the country it is supposeldy governing.

When you give them the tools to do it.

4. Government Jobs don't create value? Roads.....Hospitals.....Schools.....etc..OK.then.

Jobs created by governments in order simply to generate jobs, I should have said. If such jobs were commercially viable they'd have existed in the first place.

None of what you said did answer my question raised, if the jobs lost are not replaced, a. what do we do and b. whom do be blame.

at the moment it seems that we do a. nothing and b. blame the poor schmuck who just lost his job.

Pretty obvious I'd have thought: You remove employment constraints on employers. I wouldn't go so far as to expect actual encouragement to employ. That'd be totally unrealistic.

As for blame? Why do you feel the need to blame anyone other than those responsible for providing value to match their paycheque?

blue rider

14th October 2012, 11:57

I got 32% correct in School Cert Maths. (on the second attempt ... the 1st I won't give the result) I struggled over the years to understand some math problems my work required me to know. Extra evening tutoring helped. Plenty of dirty hands jobs in Christchurch going

? Not sure what this has to do with anything. I replied to Ocean1.

It pays more than the dole ... which the 16-18 year olds (living at home) cant get. Those flipping burgers or on the checkout counters after school/weekends (weekly hours worked in single digits) will seldom expect to be still doing it full time 20 years ....will they...???

a. not every Teenager lives at home.
b. same work should be paid the same regardless of age. I argue against this law as it will open a can of worms, will the government soon legislate that a company hiring 45 + year old unemployed people can pay them lower wages too? And would you suport that legislation? After all at that age one would have the experience, the education....a morgage, wife, kids etc?
c. Apprenticeship can and should be paid lower, as they are Apprentices and will not be fully responsible for and on the job for at least 2 - 4 years. they are Learners, a different scenario altogether.

Ask not what your goverment can do for you ... Ask what you ...(you know the rest

Can I stop paying taxes then? If the government is unable or unwilling to do 'stuff' for the citizens then the citizens should be allowed to stop paying and funding the governmant. Libertarian Ayan Rand Wet Dream come true.

Jobs in those sectors already have vacancies ... and they need experienced people with qualifications.

again, not sure what this is about. My comment related to Ocean1 statement that Government jobs create no value.
And currently the govement is considering closing down branches for immigration in Dunedin and Sydney. While I believe that the Sydney siders might find jobs fairly quickly I doubt the same can be said for the ones loosing their employment in Dunedin. But Hey they can move to CHCH and do somethimg there. if they can live with the constant shaking of the ground, the high rents etc.

Find OTHER work. And if you cant ... blame yourself for not having the ability to find work you can do. A novel idea I know ... and probably won't catch on ...

Luckily I have a job. But I am sure the 124 workers in Invercargill that lost their jobs last month will surely be inspired by you comment, so will the 100+ workers in Huntly that lost their jobs....and all the other lazy buggers.

a. We all have problems keeping our own jobs.
b. Are the reasons those "poor schmucks" are loosing their jobs ... always the same reasons ... ???

Personally on point A: No, i don't have a problem there. But please elaborate point B.....it would be interesting to see why you believe these people have lost their jobs.

Or maybe they just never gave their employers a (GOOD) reason to keep them employed. But that would be the goverments fault too ... right ...

do you really believe this?

Katman

14th October 2012, 12:08

I agree that they shouldn't get 100k off the bat, but as posted earlier, they're hardly getting paid enough to make their own way.

When I started my apprenticeship (at the age of 20) I was earning $3.40 an hour. Every 6 months I qualified for a 50 cents an hour pay rise.

I was flatting at the time and after paying rent and my weekly expenses I was left with about $20 to have fun with.

That is what instilled a sense of the value of money in me.

Kids these days have largely grown up with parents that have given them everything they ever demanded and in doing so have generally failed to teach their kids that you have to earn your place in life.

blue rider

14th October 2012, 12:09

Pretty obvious I'd have thought: You remove employment constraints on employers. I wouldn't go so far as to expect actual encouragement to employ. That'd be totally unrealistic.

As for blame? Why do you feel the need to blame anyone other than those responsible for providing value to match their paycheque?

Ok...what constrainst on employers would you remove? Lesser Tax? friendlier fireing (?) of staff once not needed (at the companies discretion) more unpaid overhours for salaried staff (how many hours would be acceptable), less wages - how low can you go? etc....and how will this affect the social fabric of the country?
I mean in China 0.99 cents an hour is considered a wage, coupled with a sleep out on the premises shared by up to 3 people, 12 hours a day working hours and seven day weeks.
Are we talking these kinds of constraints? And we wonder why everyone with a brain, and an unpaid education runs away?

As for blame....i don't blame any one...however I read alot about blame the dole bludgers, blame the unemployed, blame the lazy youth (obviously this is always the kid of someone else.....) etc.

I just really would like to see a shift in attitude....not everyone who lost a job is at fault, not everyone who receives a benefit is a bludger and abuser....and maybe government could finally start working on something other that attributing blame to the "other". I pay taxes for these highly educated, worldy and smart people ot get the country going forward, not for them to just howl at the moon and pay themselves nice salaries.

Akzle

14th October 2012, 12:29

:corn::corn:
. .

scissorhands

14th October 2012, 13:13

Kids these days have largely grown up with parents that have given them everything they ever demanded and in doing so have generally failed to teach their kids that you have to earn your place in life.

The first generation makes the money
The second generation keeps the money
The third generation....
.....loses the money

I wonder which one we are up to now?
And so the world goes around for another millennia...another empire down the gurgler

The decadence and decay, the deterioration of family jewels/genes manifesting in rapidly increasing birth defects...
may as well just get stoned and wait for the end eh?:baby:

mashman

14th October 2012, 13:17

Perhaps people in Huntly and Invercargill should move where work IS. (as if they need another excuse to move)

Peoples attitudes on what they do ... and where they do it (in regards to employment) needs to change.

Such 2 dimensional thinking. Why don't we implement an alternative? Why can't these people stay and have jobs come to them? Mate it's the 21st century and the tech is available and being used by Telecom. Perhaps more businesses could get a smaller, cheaper "Head Office" and allow people to work from a central point or even from home? It would stop filling up the cities and could potentially promote growth in many different regions, lots of small localised development projects as opposed to roads for Auckland. NOW that's what I'd call working smarter.

Yes they do, couldn't agree more.

When I started my apprenticeship (at the age of 20) I was earning $3.40 an hour. Every 6 months I qualified for a 50 cents an hour pay rise.

I was flatting at the time and after paying rent and my weekly expenses I was left with about $20 to have fun with.

That is what instilled a sense of the value of money in me.

Kids these days have largely grown up with parents that have given them everything they ever demanded and in doing so have generally failed to teach their kids that you have to earn your place in life.

The world has changed, but you only notice this when you stop measuring society with your own yard stick.

Rents aren't cheap these days and $10.50 really isn't a lot at all? Yes it's a lesson to learn, been there, done that, but it didn't necessarily have to be that way and it wasn't always the case. Once upon a time an education was free, but not in my time, and fighting your finances whilst you're trying to study isn't a lesson that really needs to be learned is it? What applied once doesn't necessarily apply now.

Kids these days are same as the kids in those days. We've given them everything because we can afford it and the shiney things are trendy and it stop the kids crying about it. Kids have become smarter more quickly is all. They have access to amazing technology that was but a blip on the horizon in my day. Shit my 4 year old has learned from her older sisters how to work the PC, what the password is, switch on the TV, load up a DVD if wanted. Society has simply failed to respond to that in any positive way. That's what's wrong.

Katman

14th October 2012, 13:23

We've given them everything because we can afford it and the shiney things are trendy and it stop the kids crying about it.

Exactly - they've been given everything they've ever demanded.

Spoilt little fucks.

mashman

14th October 2012, 13:33

Exactly - they've been given everything they've ever demanded.

Spoilt little fucks.

I think it's useful shit to have in a kids hands. Not giving it to them will likely cost people jobs too. Kids banned from allowing to own a phone or smart device until the age of 16. That'll sort it. ;)

:rofl:

Berries

14th October 2012, 15:17

Perhaps people in Huntly and Invercargill should move where work IS. (as if they need another excuse to move)
I moved to Invercargill from the other side of the world for work. I should have smelt a rat but was persuaded by the stories of the legendary summers in this south pacific heaven.

Tahiti my arse.

Fuckers.

FJRider

14th October 2012, 16:14

Tahiti my arse.

Fuckers.

It's only a few hours plane ride away ... ;)

FJRider

14th October 2012, 16:27

Such 2 dimensional thinking. Why don't we implement an alternative? Why can't these people stay and have jobs come to them? Mate it's the 21st century and the tech is available and being used by Telecom. Perhaps more businesses could get a smaller, cheaper "Head Office" and allow people to work from a central point or even from home? It would stop filling up the cities and could potentially promote growth in many different regions, lots of small localised development projects as opposed to roads for Auckland. NOW that's what I'd call working smarter.

We have "Head Office" people down here in Paradise. I know of a few that commute to Auckland for the weekly/monthly meetings. One told me his commute time from the Clutha valley to the Auckland office, via the direct Queenstown/Auckland 737, takes less time than it used to take him from his last house in Cambridge.

Ocean1

14th October 2012, 16:37

Ok...what constrainst on employers would you remove? Lesser Tax? friendlier fireing (?) of staff once not needed (at the companies discretion) more unpaid overhours for salaried staff (how many hours would be acceptable), less wages - how low can you go? etc....

Artificial limits on payrates is the one in question innit? It's a good start.

Understand this: If there's profit to be made in hiring someone at any given specific remuneration then someone WILL hire them. If they don't want to work for that hourly rate fine, don't. Just don't expect anyone to pay more than you're worth. It really is that simple.

...and how will this affect the social fabric of the country?

Wrong way around. Better question might be "How successful can society make it's businesses?"
Business doesn't need or have any valid function in shaping society. Society's survival, on the other hand relies on succesful businesses, and it's prosperity depends directly on how profitable those business are.

For years, now, society in the shape of populist governments have made it incresingly difficult for businesses to survive. That's why there's fuck all left in NZ. Attract and support more businesses, preferably ones working within in high-tech ,(read high-skilled and profitable) industrys and "society" would get better results.

But nobody wants to hear that. It's much easier to bleed them white in order to support those who don't choose to work that hard.

mashman

14th October 2012, 17:08

Too old for job (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/15114505/woman-too-old-for-job/#)... inevitable fallout?

mashman

14th October 2012, 17:10

We have "Head Office" people down here in Paradise. I know of a few that commute to Auckland for the weekly/monthly meetings. One told me his commute time from the Clutha valley to the Auckland office, via the direct Queenstown/Auckland 737, takes less time than it used to take him from his last house in Cambridge.

Aye. We have a guy up from Nelson and 1 down from Whanganui. They both probably need to be here for meetings etc... tis a shame that they have to work away from home.

FJRider

14th October 2012, 17:17

... tis a shame that they have to work away from home.

Nelson I could understand ... but Whanganui ... ??? :wacko:

Akzle

14th October 2012, 18:54

Society's survival, on the other hand relies on succesful businesses, and it's prosperity depends directly on how profitable those business are.

...society in the shape of populist governments have made it incresingly difficult for businesses to survive.
...That's why there's fuck all left in NZ.

no.
no you're wrong.

"society's survival" depends on having sufficient food, water and shelter available at all times for those within that society. everything else is secondary. business, eco-no-money (made that one up -yeah!) etcetera are just a fucking sideshow.

the governments ARE a business, only they're under the thumb of a larger one, that'd be world banking, as long as you play a game on a slanted paddock, where you have no say in the rules and no recourse to adjudication from some kind of fair or impartial authority, you are at the mercy of the rule makers.

there's fuckall left in NZ?
feel free to leave. in fact, fuckit. i'll shout you a one way ticket anywhere in the world, as long as you promise not to come back. no discredit to ya, but if you think there aint fuckall here, then fuckoff.
NZ has more than enough for everyone here, and some sweet sweet scenery to boot, ideal growing conditions for many species of plant and animal :doobey: :ar15:
NZ might not have much money, or materiel "wealth", but that actually, in the scheme of things, aint worth fuckall.
and the increasing tilt of the scales of state-supported vs state-milked innt going to get better any time soon.

i reckon your problem is that you're looking to an "economic" solution to an entirely fabricated problem, treating the symptom, not the cause.

Akzle

14th October 2012, 18:57

Nelson I could understand ... but Whanganui ... ??? :wacko:

*wanganui
. .

FJRider

14th October 2012, 19:01

*wanganui
. .

That's further south ... isn't it ... :whistle:

Brian d marge

14th October 2012, 21:40

no.
no you're wrong.

"society's survival" depends on having sufficient food, water and shelter available at all times for those within that society. everything else is secondary. business, eco-no-money (made that one up -yeah!) etcetera are just a fucking sideshow.

the governments ARE a business, only they're under the thumb of a larger one, that'd be world banking, as long as you play a game on a slanted paddock, where you have no say in the rules and no recourse to adjudication from some kind of fair or impartial authority, you are at the mercy of the rule makers.

there's fuckall left in NZ?
feel free to leave. in fact, fuckit. i'll shout you a one way ticket anywhere in the world, as long as you promise not to come back. no discredit to ya, but if you think there aint fuckall here, then fuckoff.
NZ has more than enough for everyone here, and some sweet sweet scenery to boot, ideal growing conditions for many species of plant and animal :doobey: :ar15:
NZ might not have much money, or materiel "wealth", but that actually, in the scheme of things, aint worth fuckall.
and the increasing tilt of the scales of state-supported vs state-milked innt going to get better any time soon.

i reckon your problem is that you're looking to an "economic" solution to an entirely fabricated problem, treating the symptom, not the cause.

Took your advice , offwardly fked I went , If I give bank detail could put money in by tommorrow nite , I have a date . The grass ( yes that as well ) IS greener over here

Your completely right about the economic thing though , and as long as we have to live with it. we can at least try and make it more sustainable ( going to have to one day ) ...

Grow veges , and do everything not to use the "mans" money ..

Stephen

Charlie Boorman is on his bike a gain in Canada ...to Im off to watch that ....

Brian d marge

14th October 2012, 21:48

just howl at the moon and pay themselves nice salaries.

I could do that

go on gizza job gone mista

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/p2inSqo3Q3c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Stephen

Brian d marge

15th October 2012, 00:50

http://www.trueactivist.com/10-signs-that-youre-fully-awake/

Tin hats everybody

Stephen

Ocean1

15th October 2012, 06:51

"society's survival" depends on having sufficient food, water and shelter available at all times for those within that society. everything else is secondary. business, eco-no-money (made that one up -yeah!) etcetera are just a fucking sideshow.

Business is simply the mechanism whereby we generate the value to acquire the resources to live. Without that sideshow you don't HAVE food, water and shelter.

oneofsix

15th October 2012, 07:47

Business is simply the mechanism whereby we generate the value to acquire the resources to live. Without that sideshow you don't HAVE food, water and shelter.

You are confusing Business with trading. Business is assigning value to something that has little or no real value and convincing others that it has the value you have assigned it. The burger flipper at McDonalds has more value than the CEO of the bank. You need food to live, why do you really need the bank CEO?

Banditbandit

15th October 2012, 08:14

Business is simply the mechanism whereby we generate the value to acquire the resources to live. Without that sideshow you don't HAVE food, water and shelter.

That's crap man. There's free food out there if you now where to find it ... (I eat free food at least once a week - could eat more if I didnt go to "work") free water too (I'm not on a town supply and pay no water rates ...) ... and shelter as well.

You are too tied into the contemporary capitalist system ...

Banditbandit

15th October 2012, 08:16

Understand this: If there's profit to be made in hiring someone at any given specific remuneration then someone WILL hire them. If they don't want to work for that hourly rate fine, don't. Just don't expect anyone to pay more than you're worth. It really is that simple.

And understand this -it's a Labour market as well ... if a business cannot pay a market rates for its workers then it is not going to be an economic business.

Who sets the market rates ? The business owner AND the workers ...

oneofsix

15th October 2012, 08:20

And understand this -it's a Labour market as well ... if a business cannot pay a market rates for its workers then it is not going to be an economic business.

Who sets the market rates ? The business owner AND the workers ...

Not "AND the workers" in NZ. That might apply in Aussie where they still have unions to represent the workers. The business "can't afford it" and yet pays over the top director and CEO fees. umm wonder why the Aussie economy is better with all that extra money going in at the bottom instead of being skimmed off at the top.

Banditbandit

15th October 2012, 10:58

Not "AND the workers" in NZ. That might apply in Aussie where they still have unions to represent the workers.

Not quitre what I meant - I mant that workers vote with their feet - they don't take the job ... I do not mean that in a naive way - take a look at our fruit picking industries - the law was changed to make it easier for overseas worjkers to cvome here to pick fruit because the employers could not get enough local workers ... and fruit was dying ont he trees, "threatening a major export sector" ...

However, if you look at what actually happens - a whole lot of fruit growers claim they can only afford to pay minimum wages - and these are the same ones who cannot get workers ... the fruit growers who pay reasonable rates and look after their workers get pickers ... But now a whole bunch of growers are importing workers (costing NZ jobs) and patying them minimum wage ... the growers make a fortune, the pickders get some mnoney (which they promptly take off shore) and New ZWEalanders lose out on jobs ... fi we truly had the free market that these so called economic experts want - then the Government would not legislate to prop up bad employers and failling industries ..

The business "can't afford it" and yet pays over the top director and CEO fees. umm wonder why the Aussie economy is better with all that extra money going in at the bottom instead of being skimmed off at the top.

Yes - exactly ...

oneofsix

15th October 2012, 11:09

Not quitre what I meant - I mant that workers vote with their feet - they don't take the job ... I do not mean that in a naive way - take a look at our fruit picking industries - the law was changed to make it easier for overseas worjkers to cvome here to pick fruit because the employers could not get enough local workers ... and fruit was dying ont he trees, "threatening a major export sector" ...

However, if you look at what actually happens - a whole lot of fruit growers claim they can only afford to pay minimum wages - and these are the same ones who cannot get workers ... the fruit growers who pay reasonable rates and look after their workers get pickers ... But now a whole bunch of growers are importing workers (costing NZ jobs) and patying them minimum wage ... the growers make a fortune, the pickders get some mnoney (which they promptly take off shore) and New ZWEalanders lose out on jobs ... fi we truly had the free market that these so called economic experts want - then the Government would not legislate to prop up bad employers and failling industries ..

Yes - exactly ...

I understand you now.:2thumbsup

Most that spout free market crap are the same that bleat about the unemployed not taking underpaid demeaning jobs whilst the CEO's cream it. They don't understand that even if there was no benefit those unemployed would still not take those jobs as the unemployed are smart enough to understand fairness and how to grow dope or make P to sell to the CEO's kids.

bogan

15th October 2012, 11:18

That's crap man. There's free food out there if you now where to find it ... (I eat free food at least once a week - could eat more if I didnt go to "work") free water too (I'm not on a town supply and pay no water rates ...) ... and shelter as well.

You are too tied into the contemporary capitalist system ...

Of course there is, but obviously people prefer the barter system (business) than the lets all spend our live gathering food. Since only one of those systems leads to the constructions of motorcycles, I can see why most of us prefer it.

Oscar

15th October 2012, 11:50

Not "AND the workers" in NZ. That might apply in Aussie where they still have unions to represent the workers. The business "can't afford it" and yet pays over the top director and CEO fees. umm wonder why the Aussie economy is better with all that extra money going in at the bottom instead of being skimmed off at the top.

So have you some evidence that Aussie CEO's get paid less than Kiwi ones?

oneofsix

15th October 2012, 11:59

So have you some evidence that Aussie CEO's get paid less than Kiwi ones?

Who gives a shit how much the Aussie CEOs are paid compared to NZ ones. The evidence all over the media is the gap between the NZ CEOs and their workers is widening. The Aussie CEOs might still get the money but it is after it has filtered up from the bottom rather than skimmed at the top, as said earlier.

Banditbandit

15th October 2012, 12:04

Of course there is, but obviously people prefer the barter system (business) than the lets all spend our live gathering food. Since only one of those systems leads to the constructions of motorcycles, I can see why most of us prefer it.

Some researcher did some work to determine just how much work people would have to do in a hunter-gatherer society to survive .. the answers is .. 20 hours a week ...

Bear in mind that that is to survive ... any more than 20 hours and you're starting to get into "well off" territory ... with food and goods to barter with others ... so we would not have to spend ALL our days gathering food ...

But yeah .. lol ... it was a bit of a tongue-in cheek comment ... *(tho' it's true I gather food to eat at least once a week ) .. and in response to Ocean1's requirements for business to exist .. I too like an economy that produces motorcycles ...

Oscar

15th October 2012, 12:05

Who gives a shit how much the Aussie CEOs are paid compared to NZ ones. The evidence all over the media is the gap between the NZ CEOs and their workers is widening. The Aussie CEOs might still get the money but it is after it has filtered up from the bottom rather than skimmed at the top, as said earlier.

So the evidence is all over the media?
Care to share it?

Also, you might wanna explain how your "filtered up from the bottom" theory works...

Banditbandit

15th October 2012, 12:07

So the evidence is all over the media?
Care to share it?

Also, you might wanna explain how your "filtered up from the bottom" theory works...

Go here (August this year ...)

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/gap-between-rich-and-poor-highest-ever-report-shows-5043296

or here

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7462170/Solo-parent-trap-widens-gap-for-rich-and-poor

Or here

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10828941

Is that enough???

oneofsix

15th October 2012, 12:15

Go here (August this year ...)

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/gap-between-rich-and-poor-highest-ever-report-shows-5043296

Thank Banditbandit but waste of effort I think you will find.

He has probably read capitalist economics and not looked at the real world.

If he can't understand how giving a poorer person an extra dollars means it gets spent and there derives more wealth for the original person plus the one he spends it with, whereas giving the same dollar to someone who doesn't need it it gets put aside and no-one gets wealthier and if he hasn't seen those articles by now then I would guess the "no so blind..." saying applies.

Banditbandit

15th October 2012, 12:45

Thank Banditbandit but waste of effort I think you will find.

He has probably read capitalist economics and not looked at the real world.

If he can't understand how giving a poorer person an extra dollars means it gets spent and there derives more wealth for the original person plus the one he spends it with, whereas giving the same dollar to someone who doesn't need it it gets put aside and no-one gets wealthier and if he hasn't seen those articles by now then I would guess the "no so blind..." saying applies.

Yes.

I was horrified recently to read on the herald that 11 suburbs in Orcland have average house prices of more than $1million.

(http://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/news/article.cfm?c_id=8&objectid=10834737)

That's shocking - One $1million house will buy four $250,000 houses ... People are living in squallor becasuse they can't afford house in the same city as people are paying mill;ions and milions of dollars for a house ..

The wealth distriution in this country is shocking .. and getting worse ...

But some here will argue that is because poor people are poor because they are lazy - not because the fat cats are creaming it at the expense of others

(And no, before you dickheads say anything .. I am not jealous .. I do own my own property - MORTGAGE FREE ... I worked hard to buy it and pay it off .. and I owe diddly-squat to anybody - everything I own is paid for ...)

Oscar

15th October 2012, 12:45

Oscar

15th October 2012, 12:49

Yes.

I was horrified recently to read on the herald that 11 suburbs in Orcland have average house prices of more than $1million.

(http://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/news/article.cfm?c_id=8&objectid=10834737)

That's shocking - One $1million house will buy four $250,000 houses ... People are living in squallor becasuse they can't afford house in the same city as people are paying mill;ions and milions of dollars for a house ..

The wealth distriution in this country is shocking .. and getting worse ...

But some here wil argue that is because poor peple are poor because they are lazy - not because the fat cats are creaming it at the expense of others

(And no, before you dickheads say anything .. I am not jealous .. I do own my own property - MORTGAGE FREE ... I worked hard to buy it and pay it off .. and I owe diddly-squat to anybody - everything I own is paid for ...)

So what would you do?
Force those people to buy cheaper houses?
Regulate higher salaries in private companies?
Increase the marginal tax rate?

If you do any of those, it'll only benefit the Australian economy, as more people leave.

Banditbandit

15th October 2012, 12:50

So now you're saying that the filthy rich CEO puts his extra $$$'s under the bed, thereby taking them out of circulation?

You still haven't explain you contention that the Aussies somehow do it differently.

Or ties it up in property, thereby taking it out of circulation

Or ties it up in shares, thereby taking it out of circulation (don't tell me that investing in the stock market is investing in a company - for people who buy and sell on the stock exchange that is just bullshit ... only if you invest in setting up a company is that true)

oneofsix

15th October 2012, 13:02

So now you're saying that the filthy rich CEO puts his extra $$$'s under the bed, thereby taking them out of circulation?

You still haven't explain you contention that the Aussies somehow do it differently.

virtually yes in that they feather their nest, store it in overpriced property paying the money to other fat cats or salting it away in overseas banks or investments.

Yes I have but none so deaf ... it was in the post about Unions and feeding the dollar in at the bottom.

Oscar

15th October 2012, 13:03

Or ties it up in property, thereby taking it out of circulation

Or ties it up in shares, thereby taking it out of circulation (don't tell me that investing in the stock market is investing in a company - for people who buy and sell on the stock exchange that is just bullshit ... only if you invest in setting up a company is that true)

..and if those people don't buy & sell shares and the price drops?

Those companies go broke and/or are sold overseas.
Perhaps you could nationalise them, Comrade?

Brian d marge

15th October 2012, 13:08

you take speculation out of the housing market and you cap CEOs rates in SEOs by referendum.

IMHO

Stephen

then stand back and watch the toys come out of the cot.

oneofsix

15th October 2012, 13:09

..and if those people don't buy & sell shares and the price drops?

Those companies go broke and/or are sold overseas.
Perhaps you could nationalise them, Comrade?

Your examples are actually how the share market does not help companies long term and how it forces short term destructive behaviour. Shareholders in these companies don't care if it is there next year or about the company itself, only the share price on the item that happens to bear the companies name.

Oscar

15th October 2012, 13:21

Your examples are actually how the share market does not help companies long term and how it forces short term destructive behaviour. Shareholders in these companies don't care if it is there next year or about the company itself, only the share price on the item that happens to bear the companies name.

So you're an expert in the psychology of share trading, then?

Banditbandit

15th October 2012, 13:21

..and if those people don't buy & sell shares and the price drops?

Some fat cat loses money he didn't need in the first place ...

Those companies go broke and/or are sold overseas.
Perhaps you could nationalise them, Comrade?

Yes, there are some companies I would nationalize ... Important ones - electricity, for a start ...

I would also be more careful about selling companies overseas - the NZ banking industry owned by Oz took $14billion in profits last year - that's $14billion no longer in the New Zealand economy ... the tax on that money alone is $4.2billion ... how many hospitals, schools, police, roads etc would that fund? Earned by us and taken by Fat Cat Australians ... If that money stayed in GodZone then just maybe we could have reduced taxes ...

But no, not all ... some companies will not make money - no matter who owns them ... such as the West Coast coal mines .. shit the price of coal fell on the internationl market by 40% ... that's such a huge impact that industry will never be profitable at the moment - no matter who owns it ... so no, I would not nationalize companies without very good reason ...

Yes, I feel honoured that you call me comrade - tho' I am Not and have never been - a communist ...

Oscar

15th October 2012, 13:23

virtually yes in that they feather their nest, store it in overpriced property paying the money to other fat cats or salting it away in overseas banks or investments.

Yes I have but none so deaf ... it was in the post about Unions and feeding the dollar in at the bottom.

Yeah, the Unions in this country were so beneficial to the economy:lol:
Some of you guys must be very young or have very short memories.

Oscar

15th October 2012, 13:27

I would also be more careful about selling companies overseas - the NZ banking industry owned by Oz took $14billion in profits last year - that's $14billion no longer in the New Zealand economy ... the tax on that money alone is $4.2billion ... how many hospitals, schools, police, roads etc would that fund? Earned by us and taken by Fat Cat Australians ... If that money stayed in GodZone then just maybe we could have reduced taxes ...

So how did these Aussie banks get $14b out of the country without paying tax on it?
Neat trick if it were true, but it only stands to highlight some of the crap being talked hereabouts...

oneofsix

15th October 2012, 13:33

Yeah, the Unions in this country were so beneficial to the economy:lol:
Some of you guys must be very young or have very short memories.

Neither but obviously you can only focus on the sensational highlights. Bet you think the unions were only the freezing workers, wharfies and boiler makers or didn't you even manage to remember those 3.

oneofsix

15th October 2012, 13:34

you take speculation out of the housing market and you cap CEOs rates in SEOs by referendum.

IMHO

Stephen

then stand back and watch the toys come out of the cot.

Stop ex-pats and foreigners buying up NZ property

:corn:

Oscar

15th October 2012, 13:36

Neither but obviously you can only focus on the sensational highlights. Bet you think the unions were only the freezing workers, wharfies and boiler makers or didn't you even manage to remember those 3.

It may come as a surprise to you, but I was in one.
Not only that, I was on the executive.

It taught me a couple of things - a group of people with a grudge will always seek the lowest common denominator, and that none of us are quite so stupid as all of us.

These comments also apply to most political parties.

oneofsix

15th October 2012, 13:37

So how did these Aussie banks get $14b out of the country without paying tax on it?
Neat trick if it were true, but it only stands to highlight some of the crap being talked hereabouts...

These would be the banks that pay their CEO over 5m per year and were being taken to court by the IRD a year or so ago. Keep watching the reports that get quickly buried, you have to look through the smoke screen occasionally.

Brian d marge

15th October 2012, 13:38

Stop ex-pats and foreigners buying up NZ property

:corn:
speculation again ...there is is a lot of money floating around looking for some action,,,,

Stephen

Brian d marge

15th October 2012, 13:42

Inter company lending , or some thing like that ( not sure of details) but company A ,sets up head office in place B , then lends company B money , thus reducing its profit in country A , on which it pays tax
Company B then "buys something form company A .....

something like that anyway ....money is moved and no ,or little tax is paid

Stephen

Oscar

15th October 2012, 13:46

These would be the banks that pay their CEO over 5m per year and were being taken to court by the IRD a year or so ago. Keep watching the reports that get quickly buried, you have to look through the smoke screen occasionally.

If you look through the smoke screen (no doubt issuing from your bong), you'll see that the court action started years ago and the IRD won against all the Aussie Banks.

And whilst you're worrying about how much other people earn, maybe you could pause a minute and think how the Australian Govt. G'tee of all those banks affected NZ in GFC? I realise that it doesn't fit with your conspiracy theories, but if those Aussie banks hadn't have been well capitalised and Govt. backed, the NZ economy would be a wreck.

oneofsix

15th October 2012, 13:47

It may come as a surprise to you, but I was in one.
Not only that, I was on the executive.
Not really, perhaps mildly at most. Suspect one of the more militant ones.

It taught me a couple of things - a group of people with a grudge will always seek the lowest common denominator, and that none of us are quite so stupid as all of us.

These comments also apply to most political parties.

It is the political parties bread and butter. They rely on it but sadly the rest of society is following suit. However the political parties are only the holders of the throne not the power behind it.

Oscar

15th October 2012, 13:49

Not really, perhaps mildly at most. Suspect one of the more militant ones.

Oh yeah - The Insurance Workers Union.
A right bunch of radicals...:lol:

oneofsix

15th October 2012, 13:59

Oh yeah - The Insurance Workers Union.
A right bunch of radicals...:lol:

Oh that terrible bunch. They caused no end of up set :sleep:
:corn:

Oscar

15th October 2012, 14:20

Oh that terrible bunch. They caused no end of up set :sleep:
:corn:

Phil Goff was our Union Rep.
Fucking commie...

Banditbandit

15th October 2012, 14:28

that none of us are quite so stupid as all of us.

This cracked me up soooo much ... Yes .. that can be the case ...

Banditbandit

15th October 2012, 14:30

Oh yeah - The Insurance Workers Union.
A right bunch of radicals...:lol:

Bwhahahaha ... I can just hear you all standing up and singing The Red Flag ... (Not a real union - have no affinity for the proletariat or the struggle between the prols and the capitalist running dogs and paper tigers ... )

Phil Goff was our Union Rep.
Fucking commie...

Huh? If you think Goff is a communist then your political knowledge and credibility is seriously lacking ...

Oscar

15th October 2012, 14:45

Huh? If you think Goff is a communist then your political knowledge and credibility is seriously lacking ...

If you thought I was serious, then your sense of humour and knowledge of the drone in question is seriously lacking.

mashman

15th October 2012, 16:27

Oh yeah - The Insurance Workers Union.
A right bunch of radicals...:lol:

How long did it take you to dismantle the union capitalist pig?

scissorhands

15th October 2012, 16:52

mashman

15th October 2012, 17:22

Is the squirrel who stores nuts a capitalist?
Is the stag who eats more grass, gets bigger than the other males, fights, wins, then gets to mate with the girlies, a capitalist?

Not advocating a barbaric or greedy society, but myself seeking a natural sustainable model[,] comrade.

Lets let the lazy, silly, meek, and excessively compliant.... breed.... See what sort of animal farm we will end up with, a herd of domesticated beasts, ripe for a shit fight and takeover from outsiders

Or a herd compromised by weaker males getting a sly root too often... and spawning more of the same...

We can wipe the forest that the squirrel and the deer live in off the face of the planet over breakfast from several thousand miles away... as long as there's money in it. Praps that's the way it needs to go. However, I'd rather it didn't and we attempted to become as sustainable as possible before some group of fine upstanding citizens decides that there are too many people aboard the good ship Earth and indiscriminately (with the obvious exception of those who have been trying :facepalm:) cull the herd coz they believe that it is their responsibility to do so.

Ocean1

15th October 2012, 17:48

You are confusing Business with trading. Business is assigning value to something that has little or no real value and convincing others that it has the value you have assigned it. The burger flipper at McDonalds has more value than the CEO of the bank. You need food to live, why do you really need the bank CEO?

No, dude, business is mostly about creating value. Sure, some idiots can be convinced to pay good money for worthless shit, and that allows some businesses to deal in such shit. Feel free not to deal with them. When they're gone there'll be the majority of businesses still around, adding value to a product and selling to people who recognise that.

That's crap man. There's free food out there if you now where to find it ... (I eat free food at least once a week - could eat more if I didnt go to "work") free water too (I'm not on a town supply and pay no water rates ...) ... and shelter as well.

You are too tied into the contemporary capitalist system ...

Nothing to do with capitalism. There were and are businesses in every economy, no matter the politics. And if you don't want to deal with them then you're quite right, you can live off whatever you can supply for yourself. Most inteligent people have found, though that they do far better specialising in one field and using the earnings from that to pay other specialists for what they need. That's business.

And understand this -it's a Labour market as well ... if a business cannot pay a market rates for its workers then it is not going to be an economic business.

Who sets the market rates ? The business owner AND the workers ...

Actually neither do. The guy buying the goods/services the employee generates decides what it's worth. There's obviously higher wages and profit generated by a good employee working within an effective business.

Akzle

15th October 2012, 18:39

Business is simply the mechanism whereby we generate the value to acquire the resources to live. Without that sideshow you don't HAVE food, water and shelter.
nope, still wrong. the resources are out there, just a waitin for someone to do something about it...(not necessarily in the name of the almighty profit)

...how's this metaphor:
an elephant eats 100kgs of food DAILY.
now imagine the human farm required to produce that much food (daily). imagine the fuel in the tractors, the fertiliser (driven in from somewhere else), the land area etc etc, to produce that.

and you reckon humans have the right idea?

lets all spend our live gathering food. Since only one of those systems leads to the constructions of motorcycles, I can see why most of us prefer it.
... the other guy beat me to it. half time "work" to meet your needs. and bear in mind a large part of that work is fishing (for food eh)... so. go fish!

and also no. where there is a need, it will be met. we can abandon money tomorow, and if the guy at the ore mine keeps working, the guy at the trucking company keeps driving it, the guy at the smelter keeps the furnace going - you will get your motorbike - for FREE, howsat? (you just keep going and doing YOUR job... without pay)

I do own my own property - MORTGAGE FREE ... I worked hard to buy it and pay it off .. and I owe diddly-squat to anybody - everything I own is paid for ...)
sorry to burst your bubble. you don't own shit.
you have a legal claim to fee simple title, your government retains THEIR claim to allodial title, you better hope they don't want to put pylons or a motorway through your section, you better hope you don't strike oil, cos then you gon' be moved on in short order.
pay your rates, don't discharge anything beyond the 'boundary', don't tip paint down the sink...

I would also be more careful about selling companies overseas - the NZ banking industry owned by Oz took $14billion in profits last year - that's $14billion no longer in the New Zealand economy ... the tax on that money alone is $4.2billion ... how many hospitals, schools, police, roads etc would that fund? Earned by us and taken by Fat Cat Australians ... If that money stayed in GodZone then just maybe we could have reduced taxes ...

14, 000, 000, 000/ 4, 000, 000 = $3500.00 for every man, woman and child using an account in their legal name... nah.

Most inteligent people have found, though that they do far better specialising in one field and using the earnings from that to pay other specialists for what they need. That's business.

yup, and this can be entirely provided for (as above - go to work without expecting pay). BUT, it really comes down to what you are ACTUALLY worth to "society" at large.
personally, the CEO of whatever bank i turn up at, doens't actually have fuckall effect on my life, he could die, life goes on. now, if the blondies behind the counter were to up and fuck off, then i may have more of a problem. similarly the guy who loads my bullets is worth a lot to me, the guy who packs meat at the supermarket is not...

fuck it! bring on the zombie apocalypse...

mashman

15th October 2012, 19:10

and also no. where there is a need, it will be met. we can abandon money tomorow, and if the guy at the ore mine keeps working, the guy at the trucking company keeps driving it, the guy at the smelter keeps the furnace going - you will get your motorbike - for FREE, howsat? (you just keep going and doing YOUR job... without pay)

That's just crazy talk. You can't have a none financial solution to financial problems, think about the fallout... and motorcycles need money to come into existence. Jesus, you're talking about all but eradicating hunger and poverty and crime and war along with giving governments and corporations absolutely no reason to keep secrets or hoard useful information that may allow other country's to drag themselves into this century and start to be able to look after the people in their country propelling humanity and their ability forwards at a rate never seen and seldom thought about... amongst other things. That's just fuckin madness, why the fuck would anyone want to work half of the hours giving themselves more time to spend with their kids bringing them up with some form of moral perspective instead of rearing a bunch of cutthroat zombies. Insanity... bring on the zombies.

Ocean1

15th October 2012, 19:24

nope, still wrong. the resources are out there, just a waitin for someone to do something about it...(not necessarily in the name of the almighty profit)

Yeah. What tree did you pick that laptop from, dude?

...how's this metaphor:
an elephant eats 100kgs of food DAILY.
now imagine the human farm required to produce that much food (daily). imagine the fuel in the tractors, the fertiliser (driven in from somewhere else), the land area etc etc, to produce that.

and you reckon humans have the right idea?

Metaphore for what? You can have that any time you want, jump a plane to any third world economy.

[COLOR="#139922"]
yup, and this can be entirely provided for (as above - go to work without expecting pay). BUT, it really comes down to what you are ACTUALLY worth to "society" at large.
personally, the CEO of whatever bank i turn up at, doens't actually have fuckall effect on my life, he could die, life goes on. now, if the blondies behind the counter were to up and fuck off, then i may have more of a problem. similarly the guy who loads my bullets is worth a lot to me, the guy who packs meat at the supermarket is not...

fuck it! bring on the zombie apocalypse...

No, it comes down to what I'm worth to my customers. "Society's" got fuck all say in it.

And if you've got issues about your bank's management why don't you find another one? There must be at least one run according to your ideals, shirley.

:killingme

Akzle

15th October 2012, 20:49

That's just crazy talk. You can't have a none financial solution to financial problems, think about the fallout... and motorcycles need money to come into existence. Jesus, you're talking about all but eradicating hunger and poverty and crime and war along with giving governments and corporations absolutely no reason to keep secrets or hoard useful information that may allow other country's to drag themselves into this century and start to be able to look after the people in their country propelling humanity and their ability forwards at a rate never seen and seldom thought about... amongst other things. That's just fuckin madness, why the fuck would anyone want to work half of the hours giving themselves more time to spend with their kids bringing them up with some form of moral perspective instead of rearing a bunch of cutthroat zombies. Insanity... bring on the zombies.
:spanking: quiet in the cheap seats.

Yeah. What tree did you pick that laptop from, dude?

Metaphore for what? You can have that any time you want, jump a plane to any third world economy.

No, it comes down to what I'm worth to my customers. "Society's" got fuck all say in it.

And if you've got issues about your bank's management why don't you find another one? There must be at least one run according to your ideals, shirley.

i got given it, cause i'm awesome. failing that, laptops don't GROW on trees, dumbass. when a mummy PC and daddy PC love each other very much, the daddy's floppy disk becomes a hard drive, he uploads his bit stream , 9 months later a laptop is produced.

yeah. nah. metaphor was the wrong word for how i finished that sentence.

what ARE you worth to your customers? if your customers do not need your product/service to live, what good is it?

and no, there is no bank or financial institution that is "run according to my ideals"

Brian d marge

16th October 2012, 04:03

bogan

16th October 2012, 06:48

if your customers do not need your product/service to live, what good is it?

Plenty, how many weeks of food did your laptop cost? (hint; even if you were given it, somebody bought it)

One could argue that a macbook air is a better killing implement than a stick, however in terms of hunter gathering, a stick is a better option than a laptop in 99% of the case. I will generously offer to trade you two sticks for one laptop if you like.

Banditbandit

16th October 2012, 09:47

Is the squirrel who stores nuts a capitalist?

No.

Is the stag who eats more grass, gets bigger than the other males, fights, wins, then gets to mate with the girlies, a capitalist?

No ... if you think that either of those animal examples might be capitalist then you do not understand capitalism ...

Not advocating a barbaric or greedy society, but myself seeking a natural sustainable model, comrade.

Lets let the lazy, silly, meek, and excessively compliant.... breed.... See what sort of animal farm we will end up with, a herd of domesticated beasts, ripe for a shit fight and takeover from outsiders

Or a herd compromised by weaker males getting a sly root too often... and spawning more of the same...

I'm sure that many supposedly communist leaders, such as Josef Stalin, wouild agree with you ...

Banditbandit

16th October 2012, 09:52

Nothing to do with capitalism. There were and are businesses in every economy, no matter the politics. And if you don't want to deal with them then you're quite right, you can live off whatever you can supply for yourself. Most inteligent people have found, though that they do far better specialising in one field and using the earnings from that to pay other specialists for what they need. That's business.

I agree ... which is why I go to work and don't stay home to gather food. However, that does not make it "business" ...

Actually neither do. The guy buying the goods/services the employee generates decides what it's worth. There's obviously higher wages and profit generated by a good employee working within an effective business.

It's not obvious ... many business improve and generate higher earnings - but wemployers do not pass that on to the workers ...

Banditbandit

16th October 2012, 09:59

[COLOR="#139922"]sorry to burst your bubble. you don't own shit.
you have a legal claim to fee simple title, your government retains THEIR claim to allodial title, you better hope they don't want to put pylons or a motorway through your section, you better hope you don't strike oil, cos then you gon' be moved on in short order.
pay your rates, don't discharge anything beyond the 'boundary', don't tip paint down the sink...

Yeah yeah ... It's mine ... and I am armed ... (Treaty of Waitangi AND guns ...)

14, 000, 000, 000/ 4, 000, 000 = $3500.00 for every man, woman and child using an account in their legal name... nah.

Yeah .. you are right .. it was $14million (go here http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1210/S00253/bank-profits-up-post-gfc-amongst-worlds-most-profitable.htm) . serves me right for quoting from memory ...

Banditbandit

16th October 2012, 10:04

The Exploited - Fuck the System

yeah

Stephen

Yeah .. and what are you doing about that? What do you actually DO (apart from sitting on your system-designed, built and paid for computer keyboard wanking ?

Brian d marge

16th October 2012, 11:24

Yeah .. and what are you doing about that? What do you actually DO (apart from sitting on your system-designed, built and paid for computer keyboard wanking ?
Sunday I worked with HRC to get one of their engineers to America to give a presentation on gasket creep in aircooled engines , not much really ... the rest of the time I waste on KB replying to retards

Stephen

Banditbandit

16th October 2012, 12:54

Sunday I worked with HRC to get one of their engineers to America to give a presentation on gasket creep in aircooled engines , not much really ... the rest of the time I waste on KB replying to retards

Stephen

Yeah . thought so ... just another keyboard warrior slagging off the system you're benefiting from

bogan

16th October 2012, 13:11

Yeah . thought so ... just another keyboard warrior slagging off the system you're benefiting from

He's just taking the piss you buffoon!

Banditbandit

16th October 2012, 13:13

He's just taking the piss you buffoon!

Isn't that what we are all doing??

bogan

16th October 2012, 13:16

Isn't that what we are all doing??

Most of us are more part timers...

Brian d marge

16th October 2012, 16:17

Yeah . thought so ... just another keyboard warrior slagging off the system you're benefiting from

And I should be a tree hugging hippie then.
but on a serious note , I can hold my head up when it comes to trying to stop things change things , lets just say I’ve been to the beehive and meeting with ministers on more than one occasion ( at MY expense ) gave up banging my head on a brick wall and now through hard work and LOTS of study, am now in a reasonable position,

During that time of head banging, I had a chance to study and found the system we are using is fundamentally flawed, this is why I spend hours harping on about the same thing again and again and again as you would to if you looked into it.

That song does contain some truth , you can change , by being informed and small changed ( bank locally with a bank that is local and puts thing back into the community , shop locally start a vege patch )

If you don’t you end up with a community ( which you have now ), which is divided and unequal , with the resultant poverty and the problems that come with it (the original topic of this thread )

but then being a keyboard warrior what would I know ....

Stephen

Ps Hrc paid very nicely thank you ....

Banditbandit

17th October 2012, 09:09

And I should be a tree hugging hippie then.

Only if you want to - I wouldn't recommend it ... tree-huggers don't usually like bike riders .. and the chicks are pretty hairy ...

but on a serious note , I can hold my head up when it comes to trying to stop things change things , lets just say I’ve been to the beehive and meeting with ministers on more than one occasion ( at MY expense )

Well, that was very dumb ...

gave up banging my head on a brick wall

And that's why t'was very dumb ..

and now through hard work and LOTS of study, am now in a reasonable position,

During that time of head banging, I had a chance to study and found the system we are using is fundamentally flawed,

I wonder which of my colleagues in tertiary education taught you that?

this is why I spend hours harping on about the same thing again and again and again as you would to if you looked into it.

Mate - I harp on about it in class to people just like you

puddytat

17th October 2012, 12:12

Most Hippie chicks arnt fat......unlike most of the "others":puke:
Rather a Hairy Hippy than a flabby fatty.

Brian d marge

17th October 2012, 12:44

Only if you want to - I wouldn't recommend it ... tree-huggers don't usually like bike riders .. and the chicks are pretty hairy ...

Well, that was very dumb ...

And that's why t'was very dumb ..

I wonder which of my colleagues in tertiary education taught you that?

Mate - I harp on about it in class to people just like you

Now your just ranting , with out substance (s)

Stephen

Akzle

17th October 2012, 15:15

I will generously offer to trade you two sticks for one laptop if you like.
i've got a better idea what you can do with those sticks.... :D

Yeah yeah ... It's mine ... and I am armed ... (Treaty of Waitangi AND guns ...)

Yeah .. you are right .. it was $14million
idgaf, really. hates teh banks. still, 350$... i could do with that as a christmas bonus or something.
now. if only i could work out a way to take money off the entire population, enforce my dictates on everyone, AND have all my expenses paid....
nah, couldn't happen eh.

goodo, i'm not disputing your right to occupy "property" but your treaty and guns... the government has more, and if they want you moved, you will be moved. end of.

Yeah .. and what are you doing about that? What do you actually DO (apart from sitting on your system-designed, built and paid for computer keyboard wanking ?
you mean, i have to DO something OTHER than wanking to justify my beliefs.. huh. :scratch:

Isn't that what we are all doing??
i took a piss this morning. whoooooooey, that'll be the last time i drink samoan beer all night.

Banditbandit

17th October 2012, 15:52

Now your just ranting , with out substance (s)

Stephen

Without substances? Don't most of us post here with substances - usually alcohol?

So clearly you have passed basic literacy and numeracy in your studies - please do the course for Unit Standard 26624 "Read Texts With Understanding" next ...

Brian d marge

17th October 2012, 16:12

Without substances? Don't most of us post here with substances - usually alcohol?

So clearly you have passed basic literacy and numeracy in your studies - please do the course for Unit Standard 26624 "Read Texts With Understanding" next ...
Sorry cant could cope with the " mind reading 101! requirement, always had difficulty with that one.

Stephen

mashman

17th October 2012, 16:31

please do the course for Unit Standard 26624 "Read Texts With Understanding" next ...

wtf m8, no h8 on de txts. L8r

Brian d marge

17th October 2012, 18:18

wtf m8, no h8 on de txts. L8r

"da" texts dumarse

Stephen

Akzle

17th October 2012, 18:33

"da" texts dumarse

Stephen

de = d'e = die, it's german.
foo'

found me a knife yet?

mashman

17th October 2012, 19:02

"da" texts dumarse

Stephen

abbreviated from tha? wit a knuckfuckle

madandy

17th October 2012, 19:08

Thatd b fknkl ya mpt

mashman

17th October 2012, 19:39

Thatd b fknkl ya mpt

chrs fr de lrn

Banditbandit

18th October 2012, 10:03

wtf m8, no h8 on de txts. L8r

Bwhahahaha ... Fuck me ... I must have passed that unit ... I can read it, but I need to complete the "write texts ..." 'cause I can't reply in the same style ...

GDOBSSOR

25th October 2012, 23:25

I got $6 hr a an apprentice.
$14 once qualified 4 years later.
Whats wrong with kids being paid a lower wage for 6 months? Once their worth is proven they're gonna get the same as an adult...
A mans pay for a mans work still exists for those that want it but $13.50 to stand around being shown how to do the job is fair to the employer how?

Oh and how is this the fault of us white melon farmers?

I agree that if you're an apprentice, you should not be paid the full adult wage as you are learning and being provided with a qualification at cost to the employer.
However, the same cannot be said for Countdown, Spotless, Z Petrol, etc. I went for an interview at Z Petrol before I got into nannying. If you are selected for a job there, you have to undergo three to four days of unpaid training before they let you go out.

At Countdown, they're pretty good about training, hours, warning systems, etc, but our local supermarket is certainly understaffed, and they're not provided with more than a week's training at the most. I know because my friend's a supervisor there.

I worked at a rest home, and it wasn't wonderful, as they provided you with two days' training and then sent you out to manage, or not. It was a circus, to say the least, in that everyone was underpaid for the work they did, some of the workers took it out on residents and in one case I couldn't find the nurse to help a patient in trouble.

A good friend of mine was telling me how proud he was that his 15 year old nephew starts his first job at K-mart next week. Well, proud he may be, and happy the kid may be to get a little extra pocket money and something extra to go on his CV. However, I'm not sure the nephew would be so thrilled to hear his wages he earned for working hard at a job which (let's face it isn't that hard to do if you're given sufficient training) would be cut by a third in a few months' time for no reason except his age, and that workers a few years older than him with no more legitimate experience, who weren't necessarily any better at their job, were still earning more per hour.
The problem? Well, there's the three month grace period where an employer can fire a worker for no reason. They can just hire a cheap young person over an expensive older worker, keep them for 3 months then let them go.

Brian d marge

26th October 2012, 02:07

I agree that if you're an apprentice, you should not be paid the full adult wage as you are learning and being provided with a qualification at cost to the employer.
However, the same cannot be said for Countdown, Spotless, Z Petrol, etc. I went for an interview at Z Petrol before I got into nannying. If you are selected for a job there, you have to undergo three to four days of unpaid training before they let you go out.

At Countdown, they're pretty good about training, hours, warning systems, etc, but our local supermarket is certainly understaffed, and they're not provided with more than a week's training at the most. I know because my friend's a supervisor there.

I worked at a rest home, and it wasn't wonderful, as they provided you with two days' training and then sent you out to manage, or not. It was a circus, to say the least, in that everyone was underpaid for the work they did, some of the workers took it out on residents and in one case I couldn't find the nurse to help a patient in trouble.

A good friend of mine was telling me how proud he was that his 15 year old nephew starts his first job at K-mart next week. Well, proud he may be, and happy the kid may be to get a little extra pocket money and something extra to go on his CV. However, I'm not sure the nephew would be so thrilled to hear his wages he earned for working hard at a job which (let's face it isn't that hard to do if you're given sufficient training) would be cut by a third in a few months' time for no reason except his age, and that workers a few years older than him with no more legitimate experience, who weren't necessarily any better at their job, were still earning more per hour.
The problem? Well, there's the three month grace period where an employer can fire a worker for no reason. They can just hire a cheap young person over an expensive older worker, keep them for 3 months then let them go.
shhhhh dont tell anyone .... its all about the almighty dollar .......

where everyone gets a shaftin

Stephen

madandy

26th October 2012, 05:03

I agree that if you're an apprentice, you should not be paid the full adult wage as you are learning and being provided with a qualification at cost to the employer.
However, the same cannot be said for Countdown, Spotless, Z Petrol, etc. I went for an interview at Z Petrol before I got into nannying. If you are selected for a job there, you have to undergo three to four days of unpaid training before they let you go out.

At Countdown, they're pretty good about training, hours, warning systems, etc, but our local supermarket is certainly understaffed, and they're not provided with more than a week's training at the most. I know because my friend's a supervisor there.

I worked at a rest home, and it wasn't wonderful, as they provided you with two days' training and then sent you out to manage, or not. It was a circus, to say the least, in that everyone was underpaid for the work they did, some of the workers took it out on residents and in one case I couldn't find the nurse to help a patient in trouble.

A good friend of mine was telling me how proud he was that his 15 year old nephew starts his first job at K-mart next week. Well, proud he may be, and happy the kid may be to get a little extra pocket money and something extra to go on his CV. However, I'm not sure the nephew would be so thrilled to hear his wages he earned for working hard at a job which (let's face it isn't that hard to do if you're given sufficient training) would be cut by a third in a few months' time for no reason except his age, and that workers a few years older than him with no more legitimate experience, who weren't necessarily any better at their job, were still earning more per hour.
The problem? Well, there's the three month grace period where an employer can fire a worker for no reason. They can just hire a cheap young person over an expensive older worker, keep them for 3 months then let them go.

Exellent examples like yours are probably far more common than some like me realise.
I've been arguing this from the perspective of a skilled person who might find themselves in a situation with young people fresh into the work force, earning the same for very differnt effort and effectiveness in their job rather than the idea that people in similar work to school leavers etc. may just not be worth any more than youths and the jobs not particularly demanding.

I've just returned from a week off in Canterbury and paid a 25 yr old $18hr to fill in for me.
He damaged my truck, missed jobs but got the bulk of it done well and kept the revenue turning over. He got bugger all training from me cause at $235 a day to sit and be shown what I do which is basically drive a big truck like its a courier van, I consider it easy enough and dont sweat the little mistakes which improve with time on the job as would the hourly rate.

oneofsix

26th October 2012, 07:13

Exellent examples like yours are probably far more common than some like me realise.
I've been arguing this from the perspective of a skilled person who might find themselves in a situation with young people fresh into the work force, earning the same for very differnt effort and effectiveness in their job rather than the idea that people in similar work to school leavers etc. may just not be worth any more than youths and the jobs not particularly demanding.

I've just returned from a week off in Canterbury and paid a 25 yr old $18hr to fill in for me.
He damaged my truck, missed jobs but got the bulk of it done well and kept the revenue turning over. He got bugger all training from me cause at $235 a day to sit and be shown what I do which is basically drive a big truck like its a courier van, I consider it easy enough and dont sweat the little mistakes which improve with time on the job as would the hourly rate.

in your last paragraph I see a common mistake which I too have been really guilty of. we understand our jobs so well it is hard to see how anybody can't do them and then you give the job to a reasonably skilled peson and realise the shit you just automatically knew. :eek5:

What I see in this youth wage is the fast food outlets creaming it, six monthly turn over of staff - sweet. We already use the WINZ training allowance to subsidise the fast food industry in hiring people off the WINZ list that they would have had to hire anyway, this means the job comes with conditions that means the old trick of getting a job at Maccas and arranging shifts so you can study to improve is nolonger available as they have to do minimum hours and minimum shit shifts. Remember this allowance was sold as allowing the likes of a small business to hire a trainee or extra staff member they required but couldn't quite afford not as subsidising a multinational poison dispenser to increase the countries overseas debt.

Sorry taking money away from people that will spend it in the local stores and saving multinationals wage costs doesn't seem a smart way to rebuild the economy of NZ, I dear say Aus and the US will profit though.

Ocean1

26th October 2012, 17:37

in your last paragraph I see a common mistake which I too have been really guilty of. we understand our jobs so well it is hard to see how anybody can't do them and then you give the job to a reasonably skilled peson and realise the shit you just automatically knew. :eek5:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence

Unconscious competence: The individual has had so much practice with a skill that it has become "second nature" and can be performed easily. As a result, the skill can be performed while executing another task. The individual may be able to teach it to others, depending upon how and when it was learnt.

Remember this allowance was sold as allowing the likes of a small business to hire a trainee or extra staff member they required but couldn't quite afford not as subsidising a multinational poison dispenser to increase the countries overseas debt.

So, why aren't you taking advantage of this remarkable business acumin and profound insight to undecut the arseholes?

They'd be gone by lunchtime, surely, dispatched to their respective offshore tax havens?