Although amusing - the problem is not the stated goals and for the record, I don't believe that the altruistic reasons given are always correct, Hatred of the rich seems to be a more potent motivator than love for the poor.
The Problem is how they try to achieve said stated goals and the unintended consequences of that.
Take for example the first line "Raise our Wages" - The 'liberal' (in the context of the cartoon) argument is to increase the Minimum wage (a very illiberal thing to do), which generally results in:
1: Some low-skilled jobs being priced out of the market, leading to an increase in unemployment
2: General inflation, which leads those worse off to be no better off in the long-run.
If you want to raise wages, you might increase the Demand for unskilled labour OR you might decrease the supply of unskilled labour.
Both of which run contrary to other 'liberal' values.
So no, As amusing as the Cartoon is, it's a complete strawman.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
^^
You are onto it.
All the left's talking points are aimed at destroying capitalism.
Climate change is complete horseshit. Its just a tool to slowly destabilize the west so we all get to the point we cant function under a capitalist system.
Same thing with the safety rules they have around everything these days its all communist dribble to put the brakes on capitalism and make it less effective.
People need to ask themselves where is all these directives come from? Yep all from the UN or similar.
So the minimum wage has been raised - and yet unemployment has dropped ..
2: General inflation, which leads those worse off to be no better off in the long-run.
Don't see that happening ..
You do know that a recent Productivity Commission report showed that while productivity has increased in New Zealand the share of the pie that the workers get has fallen - the rich are getting richer ..
Don't get sucked in by the bullshit the rich spout - it is only for their benefit ..
Yes - the economy is important - but does the economy work for us or do we work for the economy/
The economy should work for the benefit of all New Zealand - I see that it is only working for the benefit of a few rich people ..
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Actually dropped or had the definition of unemployed redefined to make the figures look better.
Yeah, that doesn't necessarily follow.
Where do you factor in things like Compliance costs? Exchange rates? Costs of Doing Business? What about factoring in that under Labor, Business confidence is rock-bottom?
As for 'Bullshit the Rich spout' - Supply and Demand is pretty simple:
If lots of people want something and there isn't enough supply, then price goes up to achieve equilibrium. Exactly the same in the Job market: If you have a Skill or Skillset that is in high demand, then you get to negotiate your rate.
If there is an excess of supply, then price falls to achieve equilibrium.
If you set a Minimum or maximum price, you don't move the Supply or Demand Curve, you create a shortage or an excess. Or to put it simply - if you increase the minimum price for an Item (Labor), then you create a Excess in Supply (Unemployment). This is why Taxes for negative goods (Tobacco, Petrol etc.) work (as they shift the supply curve) and Subsidies for positive goods (Public Transport) also work (as they too shift the supply curve).
this interestingly has lead to a decline in some entry-level jobs because the value of the service provided to the business was less than the value of the labor.
Now, that doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic to the plight of people - some jobs aren't meant to be a career - they are meant to be the type of job you either have when you are a teenager to get some work experience, or a lifestyle job (one so you can study or take in addition to your usual activities to have some extra cash) - the way forward is to shift the change the Supply curve by up-skilling these people into rolls where there is a higher demand (and therefore higher wages).
However, given all the free learning that's available - One can infer that there is a Segment that desires the higher wages, but is unwilling to do what is needed to attain them.
And for a point of Clarification on your philosophical 'do we work for the economy or...' statement - who do you think the Economy is? It's You and I. If you are upset at this, maybe next time you are buying a Coffee or Petrol or a new FARCLE for your Bandit - pay 10% extra, or pay the worker a Tip - it's not illegal to do so in this country.
But you, like most of us, probably don't except in exceptional circumstances.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
I read somewhere that the number of first year tertiary students did in fact increase as a result of the recently introduced policy. But the increase in entrants from high income families was actually higher than the overall increase, wealthy families taking advantage of the free lunch. If that's correct then the number of entrants from low socioeconomic families actually decreased.
A: So much for poverty being the cause of low socioeconomic educational achievement.
B: Labour are willing to aggressively pursue an ideological socialist agenda even where their claimed reasons for doing so are proven dead wrong.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
It's well-recognized across the tertiary sector that wen unemployment drops - people get jobs and numbers in education decreases - when unemployment rises, numbers in tertiary education increases - as people go for retraining or up-skilling to increase their employability ..
This affects lower income groups - because they are the people who need jobs - rich families support their children's education no matter what is happening in the workplace ..
Part of the problem in the lower social economic groups and with those in poverty is the value placed on education - which is way lower than the value placed on it by middle and upper classes.
Same measurement used by the previous Government - so reasonably comparableTheDemonLord
Actually dropped or had the definition of unemployed redefined to make the figures look better.
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Then how do we fix that - Serious question, because despite all the evidence, advice, suggestion, encouraging etc. it's still the case.
Fix that, and I think you'll find a lot of other things follow.
And yes, I've got No clue how.
I believe the definition was altered back in 2017 (may have been before Labour took office) whereby people not actively looking for work weren't included in unemployment stats.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks