Poverty measure ... doesn't make sense to me

[Jeeper]

Really
I think you should have a GOOD look at their history if you think that
Apart from being raped by England for years then being so in debt to the US that caused their hyperinflation, plus Mugabe's regime and what that caused too.
Massive illegal markets & slums and a huge number homeless people; poverty is rife there, not the we're hard done by poverty but real world poverty

And that is exactly what I was saying that what we have in NZ is relative poverty. Some people are worse off than the neighbours, sure. But as a overall country we are much better than most others. Absolute poverty is what a lot of the less developed nations face. No infrastructure, no universal healthcare, no education. Nothing.

[pritch]

Obama inherited an economy that was dead in the water. He pumped trillions into the economy by way of a jump start. While that worked, it did massively increase the internal debt and that upset the Hell out of the Republicans who don't give a shit about anything - as long as they don't have to pay more tax.

Some economists were predicting that the Federal Reserve would manage things so as to create a period of high inflation with the intention of lowering the relative value of said trillions. When I read that they were printing money I was somewhat concerned. More so because they were being just a bit sneaky, they didn't announce they were printing money, they anounced a "quantitative easing".

So far so good though, fingers crossed.

[FJRider]

and it was not present in NZ due to the compulsary unionism/award pay rate/collective bargaining system of industrial relations as well as welfare.

NOPE ... it was due to (relatively) high employment. Belonging to a union was not compulsory ... but often you weren't hired in some firms if you were not a member of the required union for that occupation.

There was no big homelessness stories in the media back then confirming the lower paid were better off.

Almost right ... and confirmed nothing ... it wasn't reported as nobody wanted to know or hear about it. (Many still don't)

[Woodman]

[QUOTE=cassina;1131069040]

Since the introduction of the employment contract act ... all you need to succeed is a sound work record, good ex employer references, easily demonstrated work skills and a positive work ethic. Such people can name their salary ... and get it.


You are dreaming as if there are many others looking for work with exactly the same skills and references etc the employer will hire the person who is prepared to work for the least money. What you think would happen would only work for anyone with a rare highly sort after skill.

Bollocks. There are many reasons not to choose someone who has the same skills as other candidates.

[FJRider]

Actually Zimbabwe has no problems with foreign ownership of housing stock either.

All the white and foreign land owners were literally kicked out of the country and their properties stolen. Usually the buildings ransacked and demolished. Livestock taken and killed or just left to die.

Low relative poverty as well, because median income is so low.

With all the wealthy kicked out of the country ... there was nobody that had money to pay staff ... or know how to run the farms and industries.

Be careful what we wish for.

Those that decried the lot of the wealthy ... still want to be (well) paid for any work they do ...

[FJRider]

... Bollocks. There are many reasons not to choose someone who has the same skills as other candidates.

Yep ... people that are prepared to work cheaper ... you get what you pay for.

[Maha]

Yep ... people that are prepared to work cheaper ... you get what you pay for.

Our staff are on minimum wage and do an outstanding job, they are forever wanting more hours and terribly keen to work, that old adage 'you get what you pay for' apply's mainly to selected purchases.... any Warehouse product to name but one.

[Woodman]

Yep ... people that are prepared to work cheaper ... you get what you pay for.

No, I would pay more for a non smoker than a smoker with the same skill set for example.

[FJRider]

No, I would pay more for a non smoker than a smoker with the same skill set for example.

Funny that ... I don't (never did) smoke.

And with all four jobs I have applied four in the last 15 years ... more attention was paid to my references than my qualifications. Go figure eh ... !!!

[FJRider]

Our staff are on minimum wage and do an outstanding job ...

Then pay what they're worth then ... and they wont need the extra hours ...

If they did an average job ... I could understand why you don't want to pay them more. Give them some good references ... so they can go looking for better paid work.

[Maha]

Then pay what they're worth then ... and they wont need the extra hours ...

If they did an average job ... I could understand why you don't want to pay them more. Give them some good references ... so they can go looking for better paid work.

They're also on benefits so paying more is out of the question. They can only earn X amount more than their bene.

[FJRider]

They're also on benefits so paying more is out of the question. They can only earn X amount more than their bene.

Then so is them working more hours then. And as such ... pointless them asking for more hours. I think $80 is the maximum they are allowed ... and they must declare it too.

[eldog]

Really
I think you should have a GOOD look at their history if you think that
Apart from being raped by England for years then being so in debt to the US that caused their hyperinflation, plus Mugabe's regime and what that caused too.
Massive illegal markets & slums and a huge number homeless people; poverty is rife there, not the we're hard done by poverty but real world poverty

not to mention, extortion, blackmail (), back handers, detention, confiscation, bribes etc

[Ocean1]

So thats what I got wrong about saying NZ had the best fed beggars in the world in that I should have said we have no "Absolute Poverty" in NZ. When I grew up the only poverty ever highlighted by the media was what you call "Absolute Poverty" and it was not present in NZ due to the compulsary unionism/award pay rate/collective bargaining system of industrial relations as well as welfare. There was no big homelessness stories in the media back then confirming the lower paid were better off.

Bullshit. There has always been poverty in NZ, even poverty as defined by having less than enough income to buy enough food and shelter to remain healthy.

The only difference is that then nobody blamed anyone else for it, and as there wasn't a welfare state providing an alternative to minimal employment it was usually the family of the poor that fed and housed them.

And all unionism ever did, has ever done is drag the more productive down to the level of the least productive.

[Jeeper]

They're also on benefits so paying more is out of the question. They can only earn X amount more than their bene.

So they are capable of working more, and with an employer who is willing to give them more work. Yet they chose to not work more because benefit will be impacted? To me that is the issue. Benefit should not be the priority if they are able to work.