The latest Brain Fart

[mashman]

where did this 1% come from? Even way back in Sir Robert Muldon's day the IMF was talking 10% unemployed and then you have your old and sick on top of that. That was with a good level of employment, not in a recession designed to reduce the lower paid even further like now

I mentioned 1% in an earlier post in a completely different context to yours. You may wanna read back a bit numbnuts

[flyingcrocodile46]

Really? I have a job (self-employed for 20 years) - and I've been applying for jobs for about a year now. Probably 2-3 week now. Guess what? I've had 2, count them, 2, interviews in all that time. There's no job out there that can take on the 300+ applicants it draws.

My son was in the same position. He finally got off his arse (fruitlessly applying for advertised jobs and getting no responses) and started knocking on doors like I told him to. First door and he impressed so much that he left with a job offer.

Wife has also been through the same thing, though she got one by responding to adverts after about two months.

Most employers only look at the first twenty or so applications before they run out of time or enthusiasim and select a few for interviews. I know it is difficult as I have been through the same process on numerous occasions. I find that it is far easier to get an interview (and job offer) if I front up in person (which is normally cold calling) or otherwise take the inititive (email or snail mail) and offer my services to employers before they advertise them. Staight to the head of the queue.

Good luck.

[flyingcrocodile46]

What are these 50000 jobs you speak of?

Post # 55

[Bassmatt]

Post # 55

Oh a figure pulled from thin air. Whats the address I would like to apply.

[oneofsix]

I mentioned 1% in an earlier post in a completely different context to yours. You may wanna read back a bit numbnuts

Don't have time to read backwards because I have a job slacker I have enough trouble reading forward never mind backwards.

[MSTRS:Me]

My son was in the same position. He finally got off his arse (fruitlessly applying for advertised jobs and getting no responses) and started knocking on doors like I told him to. First door and he impressed so much that he left with a job offer.

Wife has also been through the same thing, though she got one by responding to adverts after about two months.

Most employers only look at the first twenty or so applications before they run out of time or enthusiasim and select a few for interviews. I know it is difficult as I have been through the same process on numerous occasions. I find that it is far easier to get an interview (and job offer) if I front up in person (which is normally cold calling) or otherwise take the inititive (email or snail mail) and offer my services to employers before they advertise them. Staight to the head of the queue.

Good luck.

Good luck, indeed. Don't think I haven't been doing that too...
I have no desire to sell up and move but I even made an enquiry as to the remuneration for a job in another region - I got the standard "Thank you for taking the time ... Unfortunately on this occasion you have not been successful..." WTF - I didn't actually apply, fucknuckle.
So I reply to many of the "Thank you for - but you have not" bullshit with something along the lines of "Well, that was a lucky escape. With the pittance you're offering, all you need is a trained monkey"
Just maybe one of these turkeys will actually read it - but I'm not holding my breath..

[scissorhands]

Why do you think criminals commit crime? To get more money! So sure, go ahead, squeeze them some more and let's see what happens.

the biggest crims are fully employed....
crims wear a suit too

[Usarka]

Professional beneficiaries live on charity because they are too fucking dumb to survive on their own.

Ok so whats the solution for people that are too dumb to survive on their own? Kill them? Seriously?

[pritch]

That's logical and fair
No work, no vote.
In jail, no vote.
Retired, no vote.

"Two out of three ain't bad" - Meatloaf

[flyingcrocodile46]

the biggest crims are fully employed....
crims wear a suit too

The name Mark Bryers (Bluechip) springs to mind but I'm not allowed to talk about that.

Ok so whats the solution for people that are too dumb to survive on their own? Kill them? Seriously?

Not at all. There are some who genuinely have fuck all chance irrespective of what can be done to make them truly self sufficient and they must be catered for.

I just want to see and end to the inequity of a system that sees medium and long term beneficiaries having their mortgages (an appreciating asset) paid for out of taxes taken from people who themselves have no assets.

I ain't proposing to take ownership of the management of the distribution of the tax $ just happy to see a better approach than blindly fertilising and watering a weed garden. Obviously there is scope to convert the crop to a rose or vege garden which would be more beneficial, but that is for people cleverer or more caring than me to work on. That's what I pay my taxes for.

[avgas]

What are these 50000 jobs you speak of?
The facts dont support your arguments only a small number could be considered "career beneficiaries". Typical NZ response punish the majority in order to fix the (percieved) problem.

, over two thirds of DPB recipients (67.7%) are on the DPB for less than four years. More than a quarter of them (26%) are on it for less than a year, even during the recession. If this is a lifestyle choice, it is hardly a fashionable one.

only 3.1 % of those on the DPB are under 20 years of age – and that figure has barely flickered since 2005, when the figure was 2.9 %. Put another way, 97% of the people on the DPB are NOT the ‘very young women’ of Key’s lurid imagination. There are in fact, significantly more people on the DPB over 55 years of age (5.6%) than there are ‘very young women’ receiving this benefit.

Looking across all forms of benefits, 61.4 % of recipients are benefit dependent for four years or less. Only 14.3 % are on benefits for more than ten years – and since those figures include people with chronic physical and mental disabilities, the ratio of those staying on benefits because it is a “lifetime, lifestyle choice’ is lower again

http://werewolf.co.nz/2011/02/ten-myths-about-welfare/

Tis an interesting article. Cheers for the read.
However it does beg the question simply on the statistics.
I was once told that 40% of prison inmates will re-offend when they leave prison.
If I turned that stat around that means 60% of prison inmates don't re-offend when they get out. Does that mean the current prison system in 60% PERFECT?

Likewise is the NZ DPB system 67% PERFECT, or a 23% on it for LIFE?

[flyingcrocodile46]

"Two out of three ain't bad" - Meatloaf

Don't fret. We can work out a deal for you to buy my vote

[Bassmatt]

Tis an interesting article. Cheers for the read.
However it does beg the question simply on the statistics.
I was once told that 40% of prison inmates will re-offend when they leave prison.
If I turned that stat around that means 60% of prison inmates don't re-offend when they get out. Does that mean the current prison system in 60% PERFECT?

Likewise is the NZ DPB system 67% PERFECT, or a 23% on it for LIFE?

No but if you were to say nobody should be let out of prison because most of them will re-offend you would be wrong, as is the argument that most people choose to live on a benefit as a lifestyle choice and are therefore bludgers.

[Clockwork]

I just want to see and end to the inequity of a system that sees medium and long term beneficiaries having their mortgages (an appreciating asset) paid for out of taxes taken from people who themselves have no assets.

I must admit, I know fuck all about the benefit system but this seems very unlikely to me.

Sorry to doubt your word FC46 but can anyone else corroborate this?

[flyingcrocodile46]

I must admit, I know fuck all about the benefit system but this seems very unlikely to me.

Sorry to doubt your word FC46 but can anyone else corroborate this?

That's ok. It pays not to accept peoples claims too readily.