Of course unemployment is unlikely to fall any time soon. It'll not fall fuck all untill we stop paying people for doing nothing.Originally Posted by blue rider
Bogeyman
Of course unemployment is unlikely to fall any time soon. It'll not fall fuck all untill we stop paying people for doing nothing.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Anarchic Wild Child
Something like 52% of New Zealand beneficiaries are on superannuation - NOT DPB or unemployment .. it's those lazy non-working pensioners .. they are soaking up all the money ...
Go here http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyre...3Benefits1.pdf
Solid Energy employees??? THey certainly wanted to keep their jobs .. and they had the skills ... NOT the employees' fault.
Fuck .. even Paula Bennett says there won't be enough jobs for everyone ... and it's not the fault of the unemployed ...
Go here http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland...s-to-go-around
So ... if we did stop paying people "for doing nothing" we'd jut get a lot of starving families ...
Face it - the business community wants a lot of unemployed people .. that keeps the cost of employment low - then there'll always someone who will work for shit money .. so the bosses don't have to hitre the qualified people who want more money ..
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Anarchic Wild Child
FUCK IT - sucked into the bullshit again !!! Silly Hats time ...
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
SH1 rider
Steady on there lad, lots of those pensioners have heap of $$$ in the bank for asset sales etc and lots are still working. Remember in good old NZ we don't means test pensioners so even multi-millionaires get the pension.
Oh Christ you sucked me into this too so i will now borrow your silly hat.FUCK IT - sucked into the bullshit again !!! Silly Hats time ...
Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. --- Unknown sage
Royal Enfield user
There is no friggen way you are getting me to agree with you again , this would be possibly the third time , and THAT aint happening , if I could just add one thing to that post .
IF you disenfranchise people they create "rules, " " justifications" for their existance ( see the typical bike gang) this happens in ALL communities and especially disenfranchised one , ie poor or the long term unemployed .....
Those "justifications" MAY not be in line with The NZ male Calvernist thinking ....
Stephen
Ps , The powers that be control inflation using unemployment . which is plain eviel ...
"Look, Madame, where we live, look how we live ... look at the life we have...The Republic has forgotten us."
Royal Enfield user
Sorry but bb was right , over 50 ..52 % of benefits paid out ARE to oldies , savings or not ..... long term bludgers and Solo mums and to some extent sickness beneficiaries are as groups , small % , grouped together 48 odd %Steady on there lad, lots of those pensioners have heap of $$$ in the bank for asset sales etc and lots are still working. Remember in good old NZ we don't means test pensioners so even multi-millionaires get the pension.
Oh Christ you sucked me into this too so i will now borrow your silly hat.
Stephen
There IS an argument , to reduce the other payouts in order to pay the oldies , ie reduce the bludgers and give that saving to the oldies
Last edited by Brian d marge; 25th March 2013 at 14:59. Reason: its tuesday tomorrow
"Look, Madame, where we live, look how we live ... look at the life we have...The Republic has forgotten us."
SH1 rider
Wasn't saying he was wrong on that point, it was the "it's those lazy non-working pensioners " comment. Just because they are getting the pension doesn't mean they are lazy or non-working, it only means they are over 65. Some could be repaying their whole pension in taxes which just means we are paying someone to pay the pension out and another to collect it back as taxes - really efficientBut those pensioners that aren't too fucked to work anyhow tend to also have the energy to vote
If you want to get serious I would rather have a young person with their spending and asset building ahead of them in paid employment and building a career than some old fucker sitting on their present resources (no interest in the latest 3D TV or iPhone or whatever) and hogging their income for the pine box.
Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. --- Unknown sage
Aio ki te Aorangi
Yeah, but not everyone is in the red and sometimes quite far from it and they still lay staff off. Not because they are unproductive or that they are deemed to be unproductive, but because a return has to be made for all of those with their finger in the pie... like shareholders for instance. Dividends for fuck all costing the jobs of productive people.
I am now with you on paying them fuck all, well I'm not, but I'd love to see that fallout. It'd kill the economy and it'd be priceless to watch those who think that such a thing is a good idea just standing their scratching their heads wondering what went wrong. I'm with you in theory in regards to "resource" transfer, but it ain't really gonna work in practice now is it?
I'm sure some businesses get away with doing similar. Not saying they do so all the time, but if I had not scruples I'd happily tell people that the bulb was out and I just went ahead and replaced it and that I can take it out for them if they wanted... or even have a store of dud batteries lying around just in case they didn't believe that I couldn't get the thing started etc... It's all well within the realms of possibility.
Well businesses who are desperate to employ people are gonna have to be less picky and less tyrannical just because they are paying the wages. I always find it funny when the high and mighty get all high and mighty and feel justified in being so because they are the boss. As my mum said to me last night "it's not that you have a problem with authority, it's that you have a problem with them making knowingly stupid decisions.". And she's not wrong.
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
Bogeyman
Oh Christ you sucked me into this too so i will now borrow your silly hat.
Which is?
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Bogeyman
Wrong. If they were productive they’d be adding to that bottom line, eh? any manager would be breaking his arse to keep them.
By the way, there’s rules for businesses, too. One of them is “thou shalt not enter into business in order to lose money” That’s IRD. As for the shareholders? There wouldn’t be a company with out them in the first place, and the last thing they want to see is a reduction in their business activity.
So it really really is the employee’s inability to generate revenue that’s the problem, not the nasty company’s heartless refusal to pay them. Note that I didn’t say that it’s always their fault.
I don’t think we should require every adult to earn their keep. Some of them can’t, and I’m happy to agree that we should allow them a comfortable sufficiency. Those that can work, should, and they shouldn’t expect anyone else to make up any difference between what they earn and what they expect to be paid.
I’m sure they do. Briefly. I know you reckon all businesses are arseholes, but you’re simply wrong. The business model I personally dislike is the capture of a market for the purpose of controlling revenue. You can distinguish these by comparing prices across similar international markets. Mate BB might help, there if he's as clever as he thinks. I’m happy for you to fuck with these parasites all you want. If you need napalm let me know.
Both you and your mum need to come to some sort of rational understanding about employers. Firstly, they’re the guys making jobs for people. Nobody else does this, and in making that happen they risk pretty much everything they’ve got. Also, they don’t give a fuck about your attitude to authority unless you’re on their payroll, and even if you are it doesn’t make them any more an arsehole than any other sub-group of Kiwis. Also, it’s impossible for them to pay their employees more than they earn. Do we need to visit dictionary.com wrt that word again?
Once you’ve got all that on board you might stand a chance of spotting a stupid business decision, (I’ve no fucking idea what a knowingly stupid one is) and until then you’re going to be wrong more often than not.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Aio ki te Aorangi
"Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws." — Mayer Amsched Rothchild
The big Fat Man, he's coming
So take to your heels, get running
He'll Bleed you dry, Leave you to die
And it's not yours to ask why
So just run and be aware
And don't you get caught in the snare
In the trap Because he's holding you back
You know the Fat Man has got you on the crack
You can't move, screwed down
Real hard, with your face to the ground
Keeping You in the place that you came from
While the Fat Man spends your money on bombs
And you, you're the same
No matter what you do or what your name
Because the rich are getting richer The poor destitute
Whilst the Fat Man he's got your loot
So keep running
Aio ki te Aorangi
You're saying that they're not? Really? So they pull back production and all of a sudden the employee isn't required. Either way they're productive at the time until the boss makes them surplus to requirements.
Or you can comfortably write the loss off or even sell your debt to some mug. Not all businesses have shareholders and yet they still survive. Although I was referring more to company's that have sold stakes to individuals who have nothing to do with the company just so that they could avoid going to the bank. Fair enough like, but they'll still be getting paid whilst remaining unproductive.
The revenue is there and the business doesn't always have to make a huge amount of profit does it? Especially if you're talking millions... unless of course they believe that they are worth it. Noted.
Tis a fine balancing act though innit. As the Jeremy Irons says in Margin Call (quite a good movie), "Pieces of paper with pictures on it so we don't have to kill each other just to get something to eat". Start pushing people too hard and they'll start pushing back with desperation as their motivation. On the plus side, it would open up a few job possibilities.
I don't at all, not all, not by any chalk of the imagination. They're just human beings doing that human being thing... however I do quesiton their motivation sometimes come the hard times, especially where money is put over the employee.thanks for the napalm offer, but I have in mind something a little more radical (ooo another movie line... yet I cannae deliver it as well as Rutger). I get the idea behind your model as it is pretty damned close to the way I used to think things worked. Unfortunately for both of us there are too many out there that can buy their way around rules and regs or indeed simply ignore them until they get caught... they receive the wet bus ticket, a fine that likely costs some poor fella his job and away they go again. The models with $ in them have never worked. I'd rather something different given that there is supposed to be a future for billions of people that come after us.
Nah, the market makes the jobs, the employer wants to meet the market and as such he needs employees. He can't do it alone and not all of them generate the market need... they merely set themselves up in the footsteps of another and claim the rewards as their own. Again, I used to be ok with that. Not so much these days given the damage that it does. Believe it or not, my seriously Conservative voting Mum would be more in your court than mine.. I am not the slave that they make me out to be. They do, however, have a right to expect me to do the work they ask me to do... which I do, shit jobs n all. Same goes for anyone else.
I've saved a couple of company's several hundred thousands of $ since I've been here (likely similar for some businesses in the UK), coz I iz an innovator and have paid attention throughought my career as to where and how the breakdowns in decision making are made and the affects that they have as projects progress. I generally know a bad business decision when I here one, and happily stick my beak in (wanted or not) to voice it. So when I finally turned my attention to the big one, the financial system you believe could work, shit that's a whole new level on incompetency. A glaring single point of failover that can be used in 1 of two ways. Either screw people through the fear of job losses or bank collapses or recessions, essentially through the use of threat, or it could be done away with and we could have a shot at a future for thems that are to follow. I stand by my analysis.
Royal Enfield user
exactly that , save money on not paying one group and give it to another group both of whom fall under the same banner of receiving tax money.
Which is?
Sting the dole, sickies , and give it to the oldies , thereby paying the same total amount but giving it to the people who deserve it ( or the cynic in me says the greatest voting block )
Stephen
"Look, Madame, where we live, look how we live ... look at the life we have...The Republic has forgotten us."
Bogeyman
I'm concerned to tell you that it's not a novel idea, mate, the bastards have been giving other people's money away for decades.
How do they deserve it?
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Anarchic Wild Child
That comment was intended as a "quote" from the rightwing ... who say exactly that about "beneficiaries" i.e. DBP and Dole recipients .. without thinking of the superannuitants ...
It was meant to be amusing ... not serious ..
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks