The Welfare Working Group and faith-based job creation

Buried at page 53 of the Welfare Working Group’s report (PDF) is this extraordinary statement:

Active job search and retraining is also likely to increase the total number of jobs available. This is partly because of the multiplier effect of higher incomes on the rest of the economy. Active job search will also lead to increased employment because of the dynamic nature of the labour market. Even during a downturn there will be some firms and industries that are expanding, and some regions will have increased numbers of new job opportunities. In this context labour mobility is an important driver of overall job growth.

More generally, the evidence suggests that if there are well functioning labour market institutions, over the medium term the total number of jobs will expand to equal the number of people who are available and actively seeking work (my emphasis).

The Welfare Working Group doesn’t state any mechanism for the number of jobs expanding to meet the number of people wanting them.  It could be Adam Smith’s invisible hand (the more likely suggestion imo, given the membership of the Welfare Working Group), the Hand of God, or little green humanoids from Mars creating the jobs for all we know.

Assuming it is the invisible hand of the market that supposedly creates the jobs, I accept that having more people competing for the same number of jobs has the effect of constraining wage levels, and that may in turn encourage employers to employ more people in the short term.  However, in the medium term, lower wages result in less demand for goods and services and consequent reduced need and capacity for employers to create jobs.

The job creation impact of lowering wages is therefore short-lived, and the jobs created tend to be “bad” jobs (i.e. casual or temporary and paying at or around the minimum wage).

The Welfare Working Group’s assertion that “the evidence suggests” the jobs will be magically created isn’t accompanied by any reference to what that evidence is.  No examples of where this has happened, no footnotes to the assertion, nothing!  I can’t think of any examples, either in New Zealand or overseas, where nations’ economies have magically responded to more people wanting jobs by creating one for everyone who wants one.

Because of the curious way in which the Welfare Working Group was set up (hosted by Victoria University’s Institute of Policy Studies, rather than under the auspices of the Ministry of Social Development) they are not subject to the Official Information Act. So we can’t even ask them what their “evidence” is.  My suspicion is that it is nothing more than ideology plucked from the air by some neo-con advisor to the Group.

The Welfare Working Group’s report is an extremist beneficiary-basher’s wishlist.  It lacks any academic rigour, and should be promptly consigned to Paula Bennett’s rubbish bin.

134 thoughts on “The Welfare Working Group and faith-based job creation

  1. wise words indeed..!..and given ghandi was a vegetarian..

    do you carry that through to your relationships with animals..

    …there..valis…?

    ..or do you chow down on those animals while espousing the words of ghandi..?

    ..or do you like to keep them compartmentalised…?

    ..do as i say..not as i do…

    ..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  2. Valis – all I said, is I had better things to do than listen to people who instead of engaging in intelligent debate, simply abuse people.

    And as soon as I come back, what happens – you hurl abuise devoid of intelligent debate, just as you did before.

    If you have nothing intelligent to say – only abuse – you should keep your mouth shut.

  3. I said:
    When someone who is guilty of so much of what they charge of others then decides to throw their toys out of the cot and leave for the same reasons, I am glad to see the back of them, period.

    Then of course, there are people who do this, but don’t even have the decency to stay away, returning just a few days later as if nothing happened. An even lower rung in hell exists for them.

  4. @bjchip 9:55 AM

    …as H2 itself is an absolute bitch to store and use.

    As it tends to blow up power plants, as we have catastrophically seen at Fukushima Daiichi.

  5. True, but we already deal with this through the catalytic converters which are fitted to most vehicles.

    A more complete treatment (and I would prefer it) would be ammonia based fuel cells (which rather effectively deal with the incomplete combustion problem) or some other form for the substance.

    There are two aspects to this. The first is that we are creating an intermediate storage form for electrically produced H2 and basically that is what we are burning. We can apply this same principle to Carbon and CH4. The second is that we are weaning ourselves from fossil fuel dependency.

    http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2010/02/16/can-ammonia-aka-nh3-be-a-fuel/

    The whole idea is basically a means of getting NZ Inc off the fossil fuel dependency and providing for our own transport market properly. Without killing ourselves in the process.

    I have no doubt whatsoever that we’re gonna get hurt. That happens on any path we choose from here because preceding governments have always chosen the dead-end paths of least resistance.

    The choice of NH3 or CH4 is sort of irrelevant, there are a lot of choices. I chose NH3 because it tends to get people to think outside the box a bit more. The use of some intermediate carrier for the H2 is a very reasonable thing to consider, as H2 itself is an absolute bitch to store and use.

    respectfully
    BJ

  6. @bjchip 8:32 AM

    You’ll probably have an answer for this (you usually do re things technological) but wouldn’t an NH3 burning engine create the greenhouse gas N2O during combustion unless the process ensured it was fully oxidised?

  7. Phil T

    If you want to create jobs I would not try to do an electric car as a first step. They were never built here and cars are not even built here from parts.

    There are several (more like a dozen) things that need to be done to get long term economic health restored. In no particular order:

    1. Tobin tax – transaction tax on transfers of money offshore.
    2. CGT to enforce the lesson of the restructure of the LAQC. Homes are not primarily investments.
    -in combination with-
    3. Redefining the currency to be backed by KWH of work
    4. Removing the Fractional Reserve basis of the money supply.

    *These steps remove the banksters from NZ and they will howl, but it puts our investments in NZ in our own hands.

    5. Raise the fuel taxes for petrol and at the same time seed the industry for conversion kits – current vehicles to be converted to CNG

    6. Create a research project for production of an NH3 burning engine. These already exist, not that much to be done. Demonstration project may be a more apt term.
    7. Create a research project for local production and storage of NH3 from electricity and water and air, plus automotive and local storage, plus leak resisting connectors.

    8. Now build a factory to build engines. The initial engine blocks should be adaptable to the most common vehicles on the road. Toyota, Nissan, Mazda…

    *Together these measures put us on a path that allows us to retain much of our infrastructure and continue to use most of the vehicles we have in the country. The engines and adapter kits would be a primary industry… HERE. The technology is exportable.

    9. Because the $ is based on the KWH, the production of new renewable power is encouraged. This is another bit of industry.

    10. This allows conversion into NH3 on a local basis. Each home could have its own energy storage (a tank of NH3 and a motor-generator) and the electric grid takes on a new role.

    * You start to see where these engines are going to have a market.

    11. With our own engines we now can consider building our own cars.

    12. With the first 4 items we WILL be producing our own

    a. Whiteware
    b. Plumbing supplies
    c. Building supplies

    13. Government demonstration production facilities for computer chips, disk drives, LCD screens. This is not because we will compete to build them but to have the in-country expertise to NOT be completely dependent on importing them.

    14. Government supported or subsidized Pharmaceutical production facilities. It might be sufficient to simply guarantee that there will be a buyer for the product and the industry will generate itself. Encouraging it is a matter of method.

    One has to look hard at how an “independent” New Zealand grows and thrives and the means of doing this is not fundamentally by exporting New Zealand as boatloads of rock, sheep or milk so we can import furniture and plasma TVs. We have the raw materials HERE, so our furniture should be able to be built here.

    I think the general idea of what I would want to do is now clear. Not all of it has to happen and not all could happen at once and there isn’t much of it that is (yet) Green policy.

    The problem you appear to have with us is that we haven’t done it all yet. Fair enough criticism, but we’re ahead of the pack.

    respectfully
    BJ

  8. P T
    Cleaning rivers and insulating homes is, in my opinion a very strategic move. The performance of our buildings is critical to our living within our means.
    Clean water/air/soil is a bottom line that must not be despoiled to increase exports. For to do so would result in the loss of our standard of living. What use are $$$ if our environment has been raped?

  9. Hello again phil toms. Have you read our policies that relate to the economy? Here is an overview http://www.greens.org.nz/node/25154 and here is more detail on two of them in particular http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/economic and http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/trade

    If you find them lacking then I encourage you to contact your local Policy Networker to find out how to can improve our policy. Unlike some parties I could mention, our policy is written by our members rather than dictated by the party hierarchy.

  10. Mr Frog
    Thanks for your brief input. I was hoping to find some long term jobs, possibly something which might contribute to exports and maybe stop us losing our entire nation to corporate elites. Cleaning rivers and insulating homes, while both good ideas don’t really amount to much of a strategy.
    I would really like it if you could effectively counter my points.
    The point which you objected to was that, while contributors were enthusiastically slanging at each other, while the original post was justifiably slagging off the govt’s job creation plan, when asked what the Greens idea to create jobs was there was a deafening silence.
    The party’s reluctance to discuss policy except for the odd search engine link and pronouncement from on high is disappointing. You should welcome valid criticism, especially that which you cannot counter. Those who are on this thread do not seem interested in the problem of jobs, industry, exports, alleviating national debt. This is a matter of urgency. A matter of political relevance.
    I voted Green 2 elections ago but voted progressive last election because of Dr Normans pronouncement that electric cars are “a pie in the sky”. They have been viable for 15 years, but closed down by vested interests. No emissions, no fuel imports, non polluting hydro power.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34KcMQvFpEE&feature=related

  11. And how simply looking for jobs does not necessarily create them. My 18-year-old granddaughter did what Photonz suggested and went door-knocking, for weeks. She made copies of her and her boyfriend’s cv and went round every business she could find. Eventually, he found a job with a good employer who has now offered him an official apprenticeship. Great. Worked for him.

    For her – she couldn’t get anything. Went back to Tauranga and found part-time work in a very dodgy place where she is paid under the table, has no contract, ten minutes for lunch and no other breaks and the ‘boss’ humiliates and exploits young women. One young woman left because of him and my g’daughter and a couple of others (after long talks on the phone with me)put in a complaint about him. This is very scary for these girls – insecure jobs and fear of retribution. Now, she is probably going to have to go to court and she is terrified. Oh, because the first girl left, my g’daughter now has a full-time job( but still badly-paid, bad conditions) which may not survive if he gets off or the place is closed down.

    She did her best.

  12. I know you all know better children. Whether you do or not I have FAR less patience your childish “drive out those who disagree” comments than I have with reasoned debate.

    Your tolerance is legendary as always, bj, and I agree with much of what you say as usual. I played no part in driving out photonz or anyone else, yet posted a snide remark above on his exit. When someone who is guilty of so much of what they charge of others then decides to throw their toys out of the cot and leave for the same reasons, I am glad to see the back of them, period. There will be another just like them along to take their place in no time anyway. The solution is obvious – resist engaging with those who don’t meet your own standards of debate. That’s why I mostly ignore photonz, phil (both of them) and a few others. If you choose to engage with such people, expect what you get and don’t complain – if you live by the sword, etc.

    I don’t mean to make excuses for bad behaviour and do hope commentors will take the time to reflect.

  13. sam said:..”..“..you are a species-cannibal…bj…”

    Don’t really know what that’s supposed to mean..”

    i think most others do..there..sam…

    ..cd u ask someone..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    [frog: Completely off topic. Phil, Sam, BJ - if you want to discuss what people eat, do it on General Debate.]

  14. What was the subject again? Oh that’s right – job creation. What is the Green party strategy on job creation again?

  15. “..you are a species-cannibal…bj…”

    Don’t really know what that’s supposed to mean, but I’d guess it’s part of the infantile “If I repeatedly insult you, you’ll eventually change your ways” strategy.

  16. can i suggest you read the ‘power’ story/link i just posted on the general thread…

    subject-closed…

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  17. Phil

    Did I say you needed to apologize? You are identifying yourself here, I did NOT identify you as one of the people who needed to apologize for anything. I said “if you think you have gone over the top”. Nor am I about to identify you or anyone else by quoting something that was specifically said.

    BJ

  18. do you use passive-aggression as much in the rest of yr life as you do here..?

    ..and..

    show/quote where i have told anyone to ‘leave’..?

    you really are quite the one for putting words in mouths..

    ..aren’t you…?

    “..Do I discuss my eating habits here Phil? You do… as in you discuss MY eating habits, as well as your own and everyone else’s. ..”

    don’t sanitise it..it isn’t about ‘eating-habits’..

    it’s about the/your actions of brutalising/torturing/killing/eating living sentient beings..

    ..you are a species-cannibal…bj…

    ..stop trying to pretend you are anything else..

    (now that..i find ‘offensive’..eh bj..?

    pretty much skin-crawlingly-so..eh..?

    ..look to yourself..!..eh..?..)

    ..and really..

    ..who do you think i need to ‘apologise’ to…

    ..and w.t.f.for…?..eh..?

    and..

    “..I don’t expect you to be other than who you are..”

    you really are honing that passive-aggression to a sharp/fine-edge..

    ..aren’t you..?

    btw…who made you ‘uncle’..?

    does it come with a badge..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  19. Purposely not directed at anyone specific… you are not the only one with a blog. If you self identify that is on your own conscience. The comment stands.

    People come HERE to debate issues. They don’t debate the same way on Keywiblog, or Whaleoil’s patch or any other place where Left and Right act more like matter and anti-matter. Notice that I am still NOT mentioning names or blog names. If you self-identify, that is your business. I am not here to count eyeballs.

    I haven’t been here most of the past 4 days, just got back to find Shunda and now Photonz subjected to abuse and encouraged to leave.

    That’s wrong. One must attempt to disabuse them of their errors, but abusing them to encourage them to leave? No.

    _________________

    Do I discuss my eating habits here Phil? You do… as in you discuss MY eating habits, as well as your own and everyone else’s.

    If you think maybe you have gone over the top then there are people who deserve an apology of you. I don’t number myself in that group. I don’t expect you to be other than who you are, and I would rather expect that Photonz and Shunda understand you that way as well.

    Telling people to leave is worse in my view, than insulting them. Reserved for the very worst of those who add nothing to the debate at all.

    BJ

  20. “..You want to be insulting? Do it on your own blogs..”

    obviously directed at me…

    care to show..

    (as in quotes..not vague generalities/a building-meme…)..

    ..where i have been ‘insulting’..

    ..and if you quote the closing-door comment as an example..

    ..what can i say but..’get a grip!’..eh..?

    btw..f.y.i..shunda was on a day/night-long alcoholic-bender the other day…

    ..he later posted about how ‘happy’ he now was…

    ..and detailing the heroic amounts of alcohol he had consumed…

    ..over that day/night..

    ..and y’know what..!..b.j..!

    don’t get me started on yr ‘offensive-behaviour’…eh..?

    ..just for one..your torturing/dismembering/eating of animals..eh..?

    ..far more ‘hurtful’ than any ‘closing-door-words’..eh..?

    ..and you do that every day..eh..?

    ..’offense’ is so much in the eye of the beholder…

    ..eh precious-one..?

    ..are you really trying to be the one who puts the ‘pomp’ in pompous…

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  21. I know you all know better children. Whether you do or not I have FAR less patience your childish “drive out those who disagree” comments than I have with reasoned debate.

    Photonz has not been a problem. Even when insulting(and he is usually not that bad) he is ready to make his points and defend them. Shunda has not been a problem, he is infallibly polite here.

    The people on this blog who stoop to invective and personal insult, and this is becoming an unfortunately small change from normal behaviour , have been making it a worse place for a while now.

    A far worse danger to us than Photonz is the development of a monoculture with no dissenting voices. The very fact that Shunda and Photonz and Gerrit come to argue here, help make the place interesting.

    Now you all (and I have not named names) have mirrors and the ability to reflect on your behaviour here. I suggest that you do so. We do not wish to be keywiblog. You are working at making it so, even if you do not wish it.

    I suggest that certain of you owe apologies based on the past couple of days. You want to be insulting? Do it on your own blogs. Consider how well that actually works in attracting readers and making for interesting streams of comment. Consider how well that works in terms of intellectual content.

    Cheap shots cheapen the environment. If you are going to insult someone, do it so they don’t notice the knife going in… don’t just whack everyone with a bludgeon. Make it INTERESTING.

    BJ

  22. Yer tata Photo – it’s way past time you left – and stopped taking advantage of BJ’s good nature
    Q; what did you bring to the conversation?
    A; sfa and worse.

    Does your need for destruction reach back into your childhood?
    Anything you’d like to get off your chest?
    Now that the most generous of Debaters have seen through your little shimmy?
    Best you prop up your own Party, though i agree
    they’re such a sorry pack of dogs there’s really nothing to say!

  23. BJ – Intelligent debate on Frogblog has been replaced with ignorant people making up false extreme positions for those they argue against.

    There’s little value in this blog if the primary response is rantings from people who have more interest in abusing anyone who opposes them, rather than debating issues.

    BJ – you were a refreshing breath of intelligence among all this, even if we often dissagreed.

    Frankly the ignorant abusive rantings of many on this blog would bore anyone to death.

    Unfortunately Frogblog has become a big yawn.

    See ya.

  24. Phil

    What you say is correct. We have to earn enough to cover what we spend.

    The key is to make the spending a matter of having the cash rather than of borrowing the money. You touched on it when you described the world as being awash in fictitious credit.

    If we have our own dollars defined by our own banking system and subject to rules that make them behave as “work done” which is what money represents, the incentive to buy things overseas will be reduced by the fact that actual energy transfers have to occur to support the transactions to overseas entities. The expense of doing this would make it more appropriate to build things in NZ. The expense of the overseas product reflects cost of it more truly.

    In other words, if you want to use US $ to buy NZ goods you’d have to buy LNG or NH3 or some other portable form of energy, transport it to NZ, compensate for the efficiency of conversion to electricity here and pay for the carbon emitted (if any). This gives you an equivalent in NZ $ for your US $ and, all NZ $ not in the hands of the government bank have a use-by date. The reverse is only possibly true if using NZ $ to buy something overseas. Those $ convert into something else at prevailing energy prices overseas. With the NZ $ having the use-by date on it, it is difficult for someone to speculate on the currency.

    In a way, the Tobin tax (transaction tax) proposals cause a similar effect without all the messy politicking of trying to force the bankers to use a proper definition of money. Not as good but a lot easier to explain.

    The end result is a rift between the NZ economy and the rest of the world, encouraging our people to build things for our people. The vastly overdone “comparative advantage” argument gets jettisoned and “globalization” supporters can go hang.

    When we make more things here for us, we spend less overseas and employ more of us. That’s where the NZ economy needs to go, to get turned around.

    ciao
    BJ

  25. Photonz

    You went to a lot of trouble to describe the problems we observe as “excuses” for not doing something that we actually ARE doing.

    Your problem is that both you and we are talking at cross purposes methinks.

    We are looking at jobs that need doing… you are considering jobs someone will pay to have done. The former are not affected by any number of doors hammered flat by the hordes of the unemployable. The latter are affected by the price of labor to do the job, which is a function of whether the job is advertised or a headhunter is involved.

    Now that misunderstanding is pretty fundamental and when we start slanging at one another it is almost always because someone is using a word different from the way someone else is using it. Mostly we’re fairly civilized and we all know who the exceptions are.

    You as much as called me lazy and a maker of excuses. I am still pissed off at you for that. When I am looking for work I LOOK for it.

    There is another difference that is important. When discussing skilled and unskilled workers, the cost of employment is not weighted the same. I could knock a thousand doors at random and find nobody who needs my particular skills. People who need me however, cannot hire any of the thousand other people who might knock on their door to do the same job.

    The question is, even discussing things in YOUR terms, which is to say – describing the jobs people are willing to pay to have done. These are marginally affected by the price of hiring people which is slightly reduced if people are actually actively looking for work. The problem Photonz, is that most of the people who are unemployed ARE actually looking for work.

    What will change will be a miniscule real effect in terms of jobs being done, and a further demeaning of the people who can’t find work. Most through no failing other than being born unlucky.

    No. I don’t agree with the conclusions of the WWG. I won’t call them names, but their ideology is coming through quite clearly. Welfare for the wealthy in the form of ever lower taxes is fine. The welfare of everyone else is negotiable.

    BJ

  26. I don’t understand this BJ. Seems to me you have to spend less than you earn, as a nation. This is what the entire world economy was based on until the globalists wrecked everything in the 1980s, creating absurd unprecedented levels of debt.
    Clearly if the world was not awash with fictitious credit this would not be possible but clearly, for everything we buy from overseas, be it a Mcdonalds hamburger or a woollen blanket from china, or the services of foreign real estate companies, rubbish collectors etc. we must sell something, be it beef, or our houses or farms.
    If we rent our houses from foreign landlords we must pay continually with exports.
    Also I am worried that with no relevant economic strategy to overcome our enormous debt there is nothing to vote green for and we could slip below 5%. Next election may be too late.

  27. Phil Toms

    I have a plan, it has to get through the policy group before it can be implemented. It hauls back on the definition of money. Basically it revolves around ending Fractional-Reserve banking. Our country, our money. Not the bank’s money and definitively NEVER the foreign bank’s money. Money backed by work… in the form of electrical work delivered at a standard government outlet in any of the government centers. Always does the same amount of work. The flow-on implications of doing those two things are immense… removing among other things, the necessity of financial transaction taxes, and external tariffs. The energy related transfers related to such things would make them unnecessary.

    So yes, there is a plan, and I am probably not the only one with some sort of plan. We have to get through this election and make it to the next policy conference to get it done however, it has to be discussed and understood thoroughly. NZ is not a place where “trying stuff” is encouraged.

    American reaction to a new idea: Why not? Lets do it! (explains a lot when you think about it)

    Australian reaction to the same: What do you want to do THAT for?

    NZ reaction to the new idea: We must hold a royal commission to determine feasibility and then have a conference to hash out the details. Having forgotten the original purpose by that time, we will do nothing.

    “Delay is the deadliest form of denial”

    Still, the sort of revolution that would be caused by our moving to a non-fractional-reserve redeemable currency here, would be more than I would care to approach by “just trying” it, even though I was born in NYC.

    We (as in the Green Party) are aware of the need. We became far more aware of it during the sustainable economics conference we had last year.

    respectfully
    BJ

  28. Our nation is sustained by what we produce – food, buildings etc. We trade some of this for things which we can’t, or don’t bother to produce for ourselves.
    Since globalisation we have failed dramatically to pay our way, borrowing and selling assets and the ground beneath us to pay for imports and services many of which we used to employ our own people to produce, back in the days when we had NO international debt and a much higher standard of living.
    This insane irresponsible ignorant system has been catastrophic, leading to total overseas debt nearing half a trillion, dramatic drop in our standard of living despite flogging off everything which is not nailed down and half of what is.
    It seems almost nobody understands that our entire income as a nation comes from our exports, or that we continually spend more than we earn.
    It is a profound disappointment to me that the green party seems to have little comprehension of this calamity and absolutely no plan to save our nation from being swallowed up by the global corporate elite,our population to become the new indigenous poor. This has been happening slowly steadily for over 20 years.
    What’s the plan?

  29. so..in summary:..

    photonz wants the unemployed/sole-parents/w.h.y. …

    ..to become door-to-door mendicants…

    ..that he/she can lord it over…

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  30. “I agree with the latter statement, but not the former; I’m far from convinced that Really Wealthy people are a bigger user of resources. And Really Wealth people are usually Really Wealthy from some economic activity”

    Despite the mantra that wealthy people create jobs this is not really the case.
    Job creators/wealth creators are more often entrepreneurs who created the business and the jobs first and then became wealthy.

    The most wealthy people in NZ at present became wealthy by destruction.
    Asset stripping, closing businesses and removing capital so they can invest it in much more lucrative financial juggling.

    Taxing these sorts of activities more with FTT’s, capital flow restrictions and CGT’s would be a huge benefit to the economy.

    The advocates of Neo-liberalism, deregulation and taxing the wealthy less reckoned they would then invest more money into productive business and employment. In fact investment in business dropped 2/3 since 1980, many successful businesses were closed down for short term capital gain and employment in manufacturing and value added exports plummeted.

    If the Government was serious about stimulating the economy they would have increased benefits and the minimum wage instead of borrowing to cut taxes to people who mostly spend overseas in luxury goods or paying of loans.

    Businesses are shooting themselves in the foot by advocating that their customers be paid less.

    People with gumption are leaving the country because there is not enough spare cash in wages and benefits after paying for essentials to buy products from a new business. (Taht is if their measly wages allow enough earnings to leverage into starting a business and they can get capital from a finance system that earns more in gambling than business investment) As I can tell you from personal experience there is no point starting new business in a low wage country that cannot afford anything beyond necessities. Skilled and talented employees are leaving because employers are allowed to use immigration, subsidies like WFF and union busting rules to pay less than the job is worth.

  31. careful photonz..!

    don’t let the door hit you in the arse on yr way out…

    eh..?

    back to keywiblog…?..is it…?

    fill up on reassuring bigotry…eh..?

    that’s where your kind are…eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  32. Todd – you make up extreme, racist and offensive positions and falsely give them to people.

    I’ve better things to do than listen to verbal diarrheoa from nutters.

  33. nznative – you should read what I actually say.

    But instead you go off on some tangent and make up false postiions for me on things I haven’t even commented on.

    You just keep your head in the sand about door knocking. I’ve got jobs that way. I’ve given out jobs that way when I had no intention of hiring.

  34. “But the simple fact is that there are more people wanting to work to make the wealthy wealthier than there are wealthy people looking for people to make them wealthier.”

    That isn’t a fact. It’s more that there are more people with little choice but to work to make the wealthy wealthier, than there are wealthy people choosing to employ people to make them wealthier.

  35. Photonz1

    I don’t really give a shi…er toss about ACT. They’re a bunch of hypocrites who go on about perks and efficient govt spending then they’re caught the pigs back travelling for free as much as they can.

    I think you probably should give a toss aye photonz1, Act gives support to your elitist right-wing buddies in National… and you simply don’t care if that support is not there? It’s Roger’s idea to sell everything off again and you don’t care that the party that is driving some of National’s policies is self-destructing? Pull the other one phot. Essentially Act are idiots, thieves and liars and the public has woken up to the fact, they will wake up to Nationals lies as well.

    Nznative

    Is photoNZ1 saying that “door knockers” who get given jobs are not protected by our employment laws? Otherwise I don’t see how he can say they are cheaper to employ.

    Photonz1 is saying he likes the idea of having happy slaves, who come along and knock on his door begging for work… That’s so he doesn’t have to place a $40 advert in a newspaper and take a couple of hours to interview potential employees. That’s so he can see the cut of their jib and colour of their skin. That’s so there’s no need for a contract and the person will work for free so he can see if they are worth paying or not. That’s so he doesn’t have to pay their PAYE taxes. That’s so he can dismiss them without reason when they try to negotiate a wage. That’s so he can blame beneficiaries for not working. Living the capitalist dream there phot!

  36. Is photoNZ1 saying that “door knockers” who get given jobs are not protected by our employment laws ?. Otherwise I dont see how he can say they are cheaper to employ.

    And I’ll say it once more that if their is not profitable work to be done ( for the employer ) the door knocker will not be given a job, no matter how keen they are.

    photoNZ1 is really just showing his small minded mean spirited one eyed troll personality with his bollocks about door knocking creating employment. Companys employ people because they have work for them to do.

    The Natianal party has always been nasty to those needing welfare.

    And photoNZ1 shows their ugly mindset with his obvious anger at the unemployed.

  37. phil u says “and photonz…how about that act..eh..?

    fourth in that botany bye-election..eh..?

    that must hurt..eh..?”

    Why?

    I don’t really give a shi…er toss about ACT. They’re a bunch of hypocrites who go on about perks and efficient govt spending then they’re caught the pigs back travelling for free as much as they can.

  38. and photonz…how about that act..eh..?

    fourth in that botany bye-election..eh..?

    that must hurt..eh..?

    so close to the election and all…?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  39. buckley..people leave because thirty years of neo-lib/rightwing labour/national govts..

    ..have delivered us a low-wage/high living cost country..

    ..with weak/ineffective/emasculated unions…

    with one in five children living in poverty…

    ..and some of the worst child-health/death/disease etc stats in the oecd…

    is this the new zealand you wanted…?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  40. phil u – you should have a sub line for your blog

    “making unemployment figures worse for 11 years”

    If you haven’t worked during the fullest employment recent history in NZ, you’re hardly one who has any credibility complaining about unemployment

    frog: Let’s discuss the ideas raised here, rather than attack commenters personally. Not a formal warning (yet) – just a polite suggestion.]

  41. I appreciate I’ve goaded a bit of ideaology there Phil, and I’m all in favour of workers co-ops, but the undeniable fact is that almost all employed New Zealanders owe their livelihood to a wealthy person.

    I agree its not a one way street, in many cases the wealthy purson acheived his pile of wealth by the labours of others. But the simple fact is that there are more people wanting to work to make the wealthy wealthier than there are wealthy people looking for people to make them wealthier.

    Thats why we have unemployment at all.

    If we could find more people who had the want and the gumption to become really wealthy, then unemployment would be lower. But as I noted a long way up, the gumption-rich loaded have all fucked off.

    So back onto the exact subject of this thread “faith based job creation” – jobs don’t come from faith, they come from people willing to build empires (maybe quite small empires) that employ people. Thats what we need more of, not faith.

    And to resources: “consumption/houses/boats/cars” – I dont really count those as resources, and they pay for all the stuff listed.

  42. Dates photonz1 dates… it is an increase of 200,000 according to the OECD and that figure is not even up to date yet.

  43. Todd says “I do not believe frog has made a statement in relation to the 200,000 more unemployed since National took over.”

    Yet more made up nonsense.

    Unemployment is now at 158,000. It was 98,000 before the recesion at the end of Labours last term.

    You might need to take your shoes and socks off so you can use your toes to count that one.

    Clue – it’s not an increase of 200,000.

  44. “..I’m far from convinced that Really Wealthy people are a bigger user of resources…”

    of course they are…consumption/houses/boats/cars etc etc…

    ..not to mentiontheir widget-making businesses..eh..?

    they have huge environmental-footprints..

    “… And Really Wealth people are usually Really Wealthy from some economic activity, and there are definite benefits from that economic activty….”

    yes..they make a lot of money from that…usually from a combination of exploitation (both human and environmental)…and/or low-wages… and tax avoidance..

    “..I’m loath to use the term “trickle down” ..”

    as you should be…

    ..that was rich-lie that almost creaks with age and irrelevancy…

    the ‘let us get really rich..and we’ll throw you some crumbs..

    ..we promise..!’..lie

    “… as it’s a much misused term ..”

    indeed..!

    “… but there is definitely a benefit. The Really Wealthy are generally business owners, and it is only businesses that generate economic activity which is what makes the country’s finances tick…”

    well..the t.i.n.a.-argument..eh..?

    you are one for the classics..!..eh..?

    and that just leads us into discussions about worker co-op ownership models..and the like..

    ..eh..?

    a small/rich elite exploiting everyone else is not our only option..

    ..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  45. Photonz1

    If I ask somebody: So do you want people to have no unions or protection and essentially work as a slave? And their answer is: That’s good – if they’re not keen, I don’t want them.

    There is no other conclusion to make than the answer is: you want slaves. That was the question photonz1.

    I’ve never even talked about slaves.

    You answered the question saying: If they (slaves) are not keen, I don’t want them.

    Even frog said your numbers were obviously wrong.

    Frog said my 0.01% of people who gain employment because an employer created a job that did not previously exist for them was probably wrong, but that I was on the right track.

    I do not believe frog has made a statement in relation to the 200,000 more unemployed since National took over.

  46. btw..just so you are clear..

    the definition of ‘cant’ i am using is:

    # insincere or almost meaningless talk used merely from convention or habit

    # religious phraseology used hypocritically; insincere, pious talk..”

    that pretty much sums up the moralising rubbish you preach..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  47. Kerry has some stuff there I’m right behind. This is the big one:

    Employers who can pay low wages because the state takes up the slack with WFF and childcare allowances.

    This ties in also with Bliss’s comments.

    In a low wage economy like NZ, wages are driven as a race to the bottom, so it is important to raise the minimum wage regularly and agressively. If someone is on welfare then I don’t want them benefitting some company to the detriment of that company’s competitors.

    Farmers who have their hands out when they have floods, but do not have any taxable income.

    More than that, farmers who tell us they can’t get insurance. Thats bullshit; they are just not willing to pay the price that insurance would cost them. If insurance is unaffordable then that tells you something about the business.

    And that thinking leads us into our very own “too big to fail” model.

    I’m less convinced about this statement:

    Really wealthy people who use a larger share of the countries resources, but structure their affairs so they do not pay taxes to cover their costs.

    I agree with the latter statement, but not the former; I’m far from convinced that Really Wealthy people are a bigger user of resources. And Really Wealth people are usually Really Wealthy from some economic activity, and there are definite benefits from that economic activty. I’m loath to use the term “trickle down”, as it’s a much misused term, but there is definitely a benefit. The Really Wealthy are generally business owners, and it is only businesses that generate economic activity which is what makes the country’s finances tick.

  48. “..As a two tick Green voter ..”

    ew..!

    so..yr beef with me is..i am on a dpb..?

    i am a vegan..?..and bitch at the oxymoronic carnivore-‘greens’..?

    i smoke pot..?

    (btw..the price of pot has stayed much the same for ages/years..)

    ..so..to summarise…

    you are a green voter…

    ..who has a serious attitude towards sole-parents..(dpb-version..)

    ..is a pot prohibitionist..

    ..and an enthusiastic carnivore..

    with all those qualifications..

    .shouldn’t you be over keeping peter dunne company..?

    ..i don’t wanna be seen anywhere near you..

    ..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  49. “..cetainly (sic) cant(sic) have had an english writing component..’

    heh..!

    what’s that law called…?

    and of course there is the added layer of humour of what you write in this forum being..’cant’..

    eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  50. As a two tick Green voter how would I know how the ACT party is crashing. Ask Rodney, not me.

    With the police swooping up $40M of cannabis, how is your stash going in price? Sky-high? hehe.

    Must be a hard to be on the benefit for 20 years and seeing the price of dope increase.

    But this new benefit scheme will get you on your feet in no time.

    Improve your English and there may just be a job worthy of the time spent gaining a masters degree.

  51. Yeah we should be doing something about those on State welfare.

    Banks and finance companies who fail with Government guarantees. And the insider traders who buy into them knowing they will fail and be bailed out.
    Employers who can pay low wages because the state takes up the slack with WFF and childcare allowances.
    Poor employers who drive good ones out of business because labour laws are so slack.
    State owned companies given away to corporates for cents on the dollar.
    External subsidies from ratepayers to dirty Dairy.
    Employers given handouts to employ people who then get rid of them when the subsidy ends so they can get someone else who is subsidised.
    Employers whose workforce are trained by the State..
    Banks getting windfall profits when the OCR is raised.
    Currency speculators who short the NZ dollar.
    Really wealthy people who use a larger share of the countries resources, but structure their affairs so they do not pay taxes to cover their costs.
    Fathers who use trusts to avoid paying child maintenance.
    Farmers who have their hands out when they have floods, but do not have any taxable income.

    State funded Police protection against people they have disenfranchised.

    Politicians who accept an income from the people of NZ, while they sell them, and the country out, to their sponsors from private corporates.

    Yep we really do need to cut welfare.

  52. c’mon gerritt..

    talk to us about how yr beloved act is crashing and burning…

    ..let us share yr anger..yr pain..

    ..who do you blame…

    ..i reckon bringing back the bilious old failed pig-farmer trougher…

    ..and electing the other trougher as leader..

    ..and that unfortunate david ‘dead-baby’ garrett business..

    ..that wd pretty much make up the trifecta..

    ..d’yareckon..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  53. To be a nerdy bore I am going back to the start….

    Active job search and retraining is also likely to increase the total number of jobs available. This is partly because of the multiplier effect of higher incomes on the rest of the economy. Active job search will also lead to increased employment because of the dynamic nature of the labour market.

    The middle sentence is the one that is the most interesting to me because it betrays the influences on the commissions thinking. And taken out of context it is a very good idea and I would like to blank from my mind the bollocks in the rest of the paragraph and concentrate on…

    This is partly because of the multiplier effect of higher incomes on the rest of the economy

    Which is exactly why it is so important to increase general incomes. It is very important that a large group of people have excess income. That is to say more income than they need to supply the very basics. The functioning of the market is to ensure people have no excess income. (A long and boring technical line of economic reasoning could be bought in here but would spoil the fun. Believe me, that is what up to date micro-economic theory says).

    The problem with nobody having excess income is no new and interesting ways of spending that income can be developed. No experimental theatre, no exciting ways of racing little machines, no loud and raucous music… It is all food, clothes, shelter and soap operas.

    So to have a dynamic and interesting economic environment that can support a diverse and fun society it is important that there is surplus incomes.

    So it is time to raise wages. It will reduce profits and increase price levels (does not equal inflation, insert another long boring non-fun economic line of reasoning), but the increase in price levels is more than compensated for by income increase, and the drop in profits decreases the income of only a few who either already have more than enough or should really be working for a wage rather than operating a marginal business.

    So thank you to the Welfare Working Group for arguing so coherently that an increase in wages (let’s start with the minimum wage) is so badly needed. I do hope the caring Act Party and National Party government follow that advice….

    bliss in a parallel universe
    W

  54. We weill have a pint of guiness to celebrate when philu comes off the 20 years spent on the benefit.

    Just as well those 1200 kegs of the good stuff were not damaged in the CHCH quake. Lucky!

    act-ite/twitching-knees/onanist-question

    Is that english?

    Hope your masters degree was in something useful, cetainly cant have had an english writing component.

  55. ahoy..!..gerritt..!..photonz…!..and other act-ite fellow-travelers..!

    ..reef dead ahead..!

    ..eh..?

    it’s called an election…

    ..and that is when you will hit that reef…

    ..and sink from sight..

    ..and join the catalogue of the other joke/one-trick parties that have come and gone…eh..?

    and it all started with such high hopes..eh..?

    wha’happened…?

    wanna share…?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  56. Todd – go take some maths lessons as well.

    You said “There has been 200,000 more unemployed since National took over 2008 to dec 2010″

    Considering dec 2010 quarter figures were 158,000 unemployed, how did they go up by 200,000?

    Even frog said your numbers were obviously wrong.

    Your problem is you just make stuff up ….all the time

  57. Todd – you always read things that haven’t been said.

    I was happy to weed out people who weren’t keen.

    You change that and claim I said I wanted slaves.

    I’ve never even talked about slaves.

    As I said, you go off on wild tangents when you jump to conclusions over things that have never been said.

  58. and how about that/yr act..?..eh..?

    that sad little refuge of bigotted-ideological-bankrupts…

    the latest roy morgan poll has yr joke of a party on 0.5%..

    that figure again..?

    one half of one percent..

    oh gerritt..oh photonz…

    oh how we laughed…!

    ..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  59. and gerrit..

    in those years i have not only raised a boy who is doing well..

    i have also completed a masters degree..”

    and have built a news aggregation service..

    that is in the process of being upgraded..

    ..so it will be able to sell advertising..

    ..and generate income…

    ..and thus enable me to come off the benefit..

    ..something of value i have created..

    ..shouldn’t you be going ‘well done that beneficiary..!’..?

    ..mmm…???

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  60. Phtonz1

    Go take a reading lesson.

    Here is my question again: So do you want people to have no unions or protection and essentially work as a slave? I don’t think you’re going to find many people all that keen.

    Here is photonz1 answer: That’s good – if they’re not keen, I don’t want them.

    I can read just fine.

  61. Photonz1

    There is no doubt that some cash strapped businesses will take on debt to expand their employment base even in a recession. That is a far more likely scenario than an employer taking on somebody who shows up when they have no position for them.

    I feel that you are trying to blame the growing number of unemployed for the lack of jobs when clearly this dynamic is out of their control. It is Nationals negative policies that have created 200,000 and counting more unemployed people since taking office.

    Gerrit

    Please refrain from personal attacks that have no relevance to the debate. You and photonz1 have the sewer AKA Kiwiblog to undertake such Juvenal sentiments.

  62. Gerrit says “Sweepstake on how long philu has been on a benefit.

    I say 20 years.”

    Nah – can’t be that long. Anybody who wanted a job could get one during the boom.

    Either it’s around four years, or he just can’t be bothered working.

  63. Todd said “You were the one who said you wanted keen slaves after all. ”

    Go take a reading lesson.

    What I actually said was “if people are not keen, I don’t want them”

    (and you talk of “logical tangents” = more like some wild tangent in Todds head that had nothing to do with what was written)

  64. 11 yrs actually…

    what’s your name gerrit..?

    where do you work..?

    what do you do..?

    why ban’t you use yr real name..?

    too important..?..or do you thrill to what you can say…

    ..or are you ashamed of what you say..?

    hiding behind an alias..?

    what are your personal circumstances..?

    are you just one of those pimply-faced little ideologue creeps from act on campus..?

    with their clammy hands and twitchy-knees…

    ..of the over-enthusiastic-onanist…?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  65. toad says “Some here seem to think employers create jobs because they’ve got some spare money floating around and need to do something with it.

    That’s not the way it works.”

    Wrong again toad. Often that’s EXACTLY how it works. When we had good cash flows we could have banked the money, or taken on staff. Someone approached us and offered to work on a trial (before they were legal) so we took them on.

    Previously you said “The reality is that even cash-strapped employers will borrow to expand their workforce if they see an opportunity to increase their long-term profitability.”

    You’re really out of touch with what happpens in business. Almost all “cash strapped” businesses do the exact opposite – they lay off staff, until they are profitable again.

    It’s really very very simple.
    Good profits = hire more staff.
    Poor profits = lay off staff.

    But surprisingly many think companies should make the lowest profits possible, but don’t see that that means
    – close to zero tax take from businesses
    – low jobs growth

  66. Sweepstake on how long philu has been on a benefit.

    I say 20 years.

    He says “not that long”.

    Any other entries?

  67. “Sams excuse #128″

    Actually I don’t need excuses because (a) I’ve got a job and (b) I’m ethically opposed to employment.

    But I can see there’s no point trying to discuss the realities of the employment market with you because you have the mentality of a person who won’t fix a flat tyre because you are adamant that it shouldn’t have been punctured in the first place.

  68. hmmm..!..

    ..rightwing troll has been told b4..that i have not ‘been on a benefit for 20 yrs’…

    yet still endlessly repeats same lie..

    ..this is the definition of a troll…

    ..how are all the other scumbags over at kiwiblog..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  69. Gerrit!

    Beneficiaries pay taxes just like everybody else. The only real difference is they cannot claim back on that at the end of the year.

    Whoar.co.nz is one of the leading blog sites around in terms of fast information dissemination. He often breaks news quicker than other sites. No right turn is probably the only other site comparable.

    To accuse phil u of not undertaking work is laughable! He is providing a public service, devised by his own gumption. That is what has created many established agencies around the world. As a capitalist you should be congratulating people who undertake such endeavors.

  70. Photonz1

    I’ve been harping on about this problem for ages, and the need to match choosing qualifications to match employment needs.

    That’s the first time I’ve seen you say that photonz1.

    And a big part of the problem is that it’s not well publicised when you enter a course, that job prospects at the end can be close to nil.

    I did in fact investigate job prospects before undertaking study. I was just really unlucky that the world market crashed for that particular skill base while I was studying.

    If you work hard on contract the money can be quite good, otherwise it’s around minimum wage for work any able bodied person can do with no experience and qualifications.

    I’ve worked for around twenty years as a horticulturalist, much of it self employed or under contracts. If you are trying to tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about again photonz1, I’m going to laugh right in your face.

    Get out of the gutter Todd – you’re covering yourself in sh!t.

    Not at all photonz1, I have merely taken your crappy tangent to its logical end. You were the one who said you wanted keen slaves after all. I really feel you are clutching at straws here phot.

  71. Lets look at the philu situation from another prospective.

    How much tax has he paid, running a web site, to the New Zealand state versus how much tax has he withdraw to run the thing (web site).

    20 years on a benefit is way way to long.

    Especially to sit and copy & past links into a web site that generates no revenue.

    Maybe the Greens would like to advertise their election programme on his web site?

  72. “..he has not worked for 17 years. Not even interested being employed..”

    i start working at 5.00 am every morning..

    it’s called http://whoar.co.nz/

    33 new/fresh stories/links today…

    thanks for asking…

    have a read…

    widen/open yr narrow/closed-mind..

    ..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  73. Some here seem to think employers create jobs because they’ve got some spare money floating around and need to do something with it.

    That’s not the way it works. Employers create jobs because they see creating the job will make them more money (or reduce costs by more than the cost of creating the job).

    So the doorknocker who gets a job hasn’t caused it to be created. It will be a job that was either vacant due to someone departing or one that the employer would be going to create at some stage anyway. Sure, the doorknocking jobseeker may have some influence over when the job is created, but has little influence over whether it is created.

  74. Yes photonz, and I hear there are sub-minimum wage jobs cleaning toilets in Abu Dhabi just going begging – if unemployed people just learned Arabic, left their families behind and hitch-hiked over there they could have ‘em – but the bludgers are just too darn lazy.

  75. Sam – surprise surprise – reason #124, #125, #126, and #127 not to work.

    So we have a few thousand horticultural jobs, and there’s not a single unemployed New Zealander able to do them?

  76. “It’s amazing how many excuses people can come up with for doing nothing and waiting for a job to land on their lap.”

    I’m sure it is – but that has nothing to do with the current debate.

  77. “Horticultural employees get overseas labor in because they can treat them like slaves and pay them less than minimum wage.”

    Sub-standard housing is another reason why people don’t want temporary horticultural, and other seasonal, work. I’ve often heard of people pointing out that they’d be happy to do another season douring tourism work or picking fruit, but they were fed up with living in over-crowded caravans or shabby sleepouts.

    It might be OK for a season when you are young and have no commitments, when you have a family, a mortgage or a tenancy agreement, heading off for a couple of months of low-paid work is pretty difficult, and may not make economic sense.

    Hence we import desperate labourers from the Pacific – and there’s some concern there that taking out a selected bunch of people from the community, mostly males, is having social impacts. Cape Verde has this issue with most of the males heading off for shipping-related work. Two-parent families and long-term relationships are considered unusual there.

  78. Sam Buchanan – It’s amazing how many excuses people can come up with for doing nothing and waiting for a job to land on their lap.

    And if you sit at home and look for an advertised job – straight away you’ve ruled out three quarters of all jobs, and limited yourself to the one quarter of jobs that are the hardest to get – those advertised ones that get way over-applied for.

    Your chances are probably less than 10% of someone who gets out and about.

  79. Todd says “..market is so over saturated with skilled graduates in that area of expertise. I feel that I wasted my money to become further qualified as many of the skills I use ”

    I’ve been harping on about this problem for ages, and the need to match choosing qualifications to match employment needs.

    Every time I bring it, up I’m shot down by the left who say people should study what they want, regardless of whether a market is over saturated with particular qualifications and no one is getting jobs.

    It is a massive waste of peoples time and money, no to mention taxpayers input.

    And a big part of the problem is that it’s not well publicised when you enter a course, that job prospects at the end can be close to nil.

    However your rant about foreign workers is nonsense. I have family who do horticultural work both full time and seasosnally. If you work hard on contract the money can be quite good, otherwise it’s around minimum wage for work any able bodied person can do with no experience and qualifications.

    They’re working in groups where they are just about the only kiwis.

    There’s plenty of horticultural work in regions like Central Otago, Marlborough, Nelson, Hawkes Bay.

    The problem is they can’t get enough workers.

    Todd says “So what you are saying then is you want a happy hard working slave? I guess with door knockers you can see what race people are, something that is not always apparent on a CV.”

    Get out of the gutter Todd – you’re covering yourself in sh!t.

  80. “Sam Buchanan says “and they just wasted our time.”

    It takes around four seconds to say “Sorry, we don’t have anything right now””

    Yeah, I guess I was remiss in being pleasant and taking their CVs and answering questions when I just should have said “sorry, no jobs” and slamed the door. It wasn’t a lot of time, but it would have been a whole lot more if lots of people took your advice and went door-knocking, as I keep pointing out. Basically, what you say holds true if a few people do it, more than a few and the market is saturated and such people are a nuisance. Basic market economics – a certain supply is good, an oversupply is a cost. Thought you might understand that.

    “All I’m hearing is excuse after excuse not to look for work.”

    That’s because you have your fingers in your ears and are shouting “All I’m hearing is excuse after excuse not to look for work, nah, nah, nah, I can’t hear you.”

  81. Todd,

    Have told you before and will repeat. Have an accountant prepare my taxes, never over, never short.

    But I should get some back for being an unpaid tax collector of GST.

    Used to collect reasonable interest on the GST money collected before handing it to the IRD. Now with interest rates so low it does not gather much.

  82. Slave’s don’t get breaks Gerrit!

    Photonz1

    After I finished studying I applied in writing for around 200 potential positions and had two responses both declining. I door knocked for three weeks with the best offering to give me a call if anything came along. Some businesses were obviously pissed off. I found both processes to be very demoralising. I can assure you that my attitude was fine and as always I was well dressed, it did not make any difference at all.

    I was lucky enough to be able to go back to my old job labouring. However that job was the reason I went and paid for an education in the first place, I have only ever been employed using those skills from word of mouth as the market is so over saturated with skilled graduates in that area of expertise. I feel that I wasted my money to become further qualified as many of the skills I use I could have learnt myself after a good days work. I wouldn’t have a student loan then either.

    My particular circumstances raise a few major issues; people are being trained for non-existent positions. It doesn’t matter how hard you try, if the jobs are not there people wont get employed.

    Around three quarters of people bullshit on the cv anyway.

    I think it is more like one in three. We’re all aware of the Stephen Wilce case. Here’s a few of the more well known cases:

    http://www.verify.co.nz/news-cvfraudnz.php

    The fact that employers in many horticulture industries have to get special permission from immigration to bring in workers from overseas for unskilled jobs, cause they can’t get Kiwis to do them, says a lot.

    Now photonz1, you aren’t trying to get me kicked off frogblog are you? I mean that is just such a load of rubbish! I really feel the need to swear at or mock you again. Horticultural employees get overseas labor in because they can treat them like slaves and pay them less than minimum wage. Recently a group was found scavenging in a maze field because they had no food or money to buy any. In a way you are correct, New Zealanders wont put up with it themselves, that’s a good thing. We should not put up with people who have no morals treating people as slaves, no matter where they are from.

    So do you want people to have no unions or protection and essentially work as a slave? I don’t think you’re going to find many people all that keen.

    That’s good – if they’re not keen, I don’t want them.

    So what you are saying then is you want a happy hard working slave? I guess with door knockers you can see what race people are, something that is not always apparent on a CV.

    The other issue you raise is that casual work usually means not paying any taxes. You do pay all your taxes now don’t you Gerrit and Photonz1?

  83. nznative says
    “PhotoNZ1 is talking right wing rubbish when he suggests that door knockers will be given a job when there is no work for them to do ……”

    This is provably wrong, as I’ve personally have done this to get a job, and employed someone this way, and so have family. And know of lots of other examples.

    nznative says
    “Otherwise photonz1 is talking about unfilled vacancys which is totally different than giving people jobs when there is no work for them to do”

    Wrong again. Most businesses I know have unfilled vacancies, THAT WILL STAY UNFILLED.

    The cost of the recruitment process is thousands, on top of the risk of taking someone on that doesn’t work out, and the risk of a downturn in sales means there are positions that never get filled.

    However if someone shows up at the door,
    – there is an INSTANT saving of thousands of dollars in recruitment costs.
    – it shows they are keener with more initiative, and often a better attitude than 90% of others.
    – will often agree to a trial, part time, initial low pay etc, to see if things work out.

    So most of the barriers, risks, and costs of employing someone are removed for an employer.

    And that makes all the difference between a job being available, and it not being worth the cost, time and risk of going through a normal employemnt process.

  84. The other side of the coin offcourse is the abilty for an employer to gain more business to enable more employment.

    How do we address this other side of the argument?

    How do we make NZL private enterprise business bigger?

    More taxation? Less taxation? More productivity? Encouraging value adding to raw material by differing levels of taxation (highly complex)?

    Without private enterprise growth there will be no increases in tax paying jobs, no increases in state expenditure.

    So the argument regarding job creation is a circular one that needs a break to restart.

    Where to set the break?

  85. Finding work and creating a job are two totally seperate things.

    PhotoNZ1 confuses the two, like a swirler would

  86. PhotoNZ1 is talking right wing rubbish when he suggests that door knockers will be given a job when there is no work for them to do ……

    Otherwise photonz1 is talking about unfilled vacancys which is totally different than giving people jobs when there is no work for them to do

    Or is he saying employers will pay workers and give them jobs because he likes the sound of their door knock ????????

    Gosh they are generous employers, those willing to give jobs to people even, though they have no work for them.

  87. Toad,

    I’m with photonz1 on this, jobs are created by people looking. Problem is it is not quantifyable so we can argue the toss till the cows are due for milking. And not ALL jobs are created by people looking, admittedly.

    If we take the rigger from Christchurch for example there was no job, the extra workload on offer could simply have been turned down and the current workload carried by existing staff.

    What the doorknock did was create the job, allow the company to investigate and tender for more work that was available in the near future but then also tender for more jobs in the distance future knowing they had the staffing resources to cope.

    Because these statistics are not entered into any database, we will never know how often this occurs.

  88. @Gerrit 7:22 AM

    Yes, I’m aware of the evidence that most jobs are not advertised, and agree that doorknocking and asking around family and friends significantly enhances someone’s chances of getting a job.

    But that is different from the suggestion that jobs are created by more people looking for them more actively. That is where the WWG appears to be coming from, and I’m not aware of any evidence that backs that assertion.

  89. BJ,

    My experience indicates that 80% of job vacancies are never advertised.

    Most are filled by reference from others, the rest are filled by people “marketing” themselves.

    Have one customer who lets his workforce recruit new or replacement staff requirments (admittedly a low skill workplace) so that he ends up with a very stable workforce by keeping it in the “family”.

    In highly skilled proffesions or artisan and trade jobs, people are recruited through word of mouth.

    Another of my customers recruited a rigger from Christchurch. Upcoming work load coincided with a move from Christchurch by a highly skilled (but skaken) worker.

    Never advertised, never in the system as a job vacancy, and thus never a statistic either as an unemployment or job vacancy.

    So have to agree with photonz1 that jobs are filled mostly by door knocking and marketing oneself to relations (friends) who have jobs or to aprospective employers who may have use of the skills the searcher has acquired.

    Was pleasantly suprised recently that an ex tenant of mine has secured a job through WINZ. Now that is welfare I can agree with. Support for a solo mum to get back into the workforce.

    Again never an “advertised” position, just WINZ asking a select group of beneficiaries to apply for WINZ created jobs.

  90. bj says “What I said was that looking for work cannot create jobs.”

    And I have shown example after example that I personally know of where it has.

    I’m not sure if you’ve ever employed someone, but what you seem to fail to understand it tha massive risk and cost an employer faces when they employ someone.

    All this risk, cost and time wasting is taken on when you advertise a job.

    So there is a high threshold of need for a worker, before you go ahead and advertise a job and take all that risk.

    Most companies could do with extra help in some areas, but are not desperate enough (or confident enough) to advertise for workers.

    So if someone turns up keen, and to get a foot in the door is happy to have a trial / start on low pay / start part time, many employers are far more likely to take them on, when they wouldn’t advertise for workers.

    A large number of businesses are in this position. They could do with extra help. If it comes at low risk, low cost, and doesn’t waste time, they’ll take it.

    If it comes at high risk, is time consuming and high cost, then forget it.

    bj – All I was hearing from you was reasons why it wasn’t possible to go out and find a job that doesn’t really exist – which is nonsense because I’ve done itto get a job, I’ve employed poeple that way, my wife has done it, and my family have taken on people that way.

    There are plenty of employers who need more help but won’t advertise for workers for numerous reasons.

    Convince them (or show them – work for free for a while) that you will be an asset to them, and you remove all the cost, worry, time wasting and risk to the employer.

  91. Photonz – At this point you’ve gone over the top. Review my posts. Every one of them, and find a place where I said that people shouldn’t look for work… or would not look because there isn’t anything out there. THAT WAS NEVER IMPLIED, INFERRED or SUGGESTED!!!

    What I said was that looking for work cannot create jobs. It can find jobs, but it cannot create them. I don’t see how that equates to an “excuse” except in the corkscrew universe of a right wing nutcase… and you aren’t usually so inaccurate.

    Your point that if there is a lower cost to the potential employer, they might be better able to hire makes more sense than your rant about how you wouldn’t employ someone making excuses… have a go at aeronautical intercourse with a rolling toroidal pastry, would you please? There wasn’t an “excuse” in a single thing I said.

    As for making it cheaper to hire people, given the wages already not on offer, that could be just another excuse from the owning class. I won’t go there but I will observe that the employment picture appears to me to be two tiered. If you have skills and intelligence you are probably going to be employed fully and then some until you book your flight to Oz. If are lacking in either you are going to have a rough time.

    Your contempt for the unfortunate many who aren’t so easily employed by anyone for anything, is a mistake. You are a pretty smart guy but you have to be wise enough to realize the truth of that trite phrase “there but for the grace of god go i”… because it is NOT trite and it is NOT trivial and the smarter you are the more seriously you are likely to fail to recognize it and the more important it is.

    The problem is that when/if you figure out why that is important you shift from right to left and wonder how you managed not to notice it before.

    Good luck

    BJ

  92. Sam Buchanan says “and they just wasted our time.”

    It takes around four seconds to say “Sorry, we don’t have anything right now”

    All I’m hearing is excuse after excuse not to look for work.

  93. Todd says ” So do you want people to have no unions or protection and essentially work as a slave? I don’t think you’re going to find many people all that keen.”

    That’s good – if they’re not keen, I don’t want them.

    Actually working for very little or free is a great way to get a foot in the door. I mentioned one job earlier where my wife worked for peanuts but it led to a dream job.

    One job I did in UK I worked for next to nothing for a month or more to show the employer I could do the work. That led to four years (hard) work where earned sevral times what I was earning in NZ.

  94. “And if someone comes to your door, they show that they are keener than the 100,000 people who didn’t come to your door.”

    My point exactly – there’s no point telling everyone to door knock as then you can’t pick out the eager ones.

    “They show they have a better attitude than the likes of bj and Sam who make excuses for not bothering to door knock.”

    Matter of fact, my present job came about mostly due to door knocking. But in my last job we got quite a few people dropping in looking for work, we didn’t have anything to offer, and they just wasted our time.

  95. Todd – around 70/75% are unadvertised. I never said they were ALL jobs you could get by simply approaching an employer.

    I would think only a small number are.

    But to an employer, attiutude is just about the best attribute.

    And if someone comes to your door, they show that they are keener than the 100,000 people who didn’t come to your door.

    They show they have a better attitude than the likes of bj and Sam who make excuses for not bothering to door knock.

    And if you interview 50 people, it’s hard to tell if they are really keen or just showing keeness for the interview – around three quarters of people bullshit on the cv anyway, so those can’t be trusted (and you can look that up as well – it’s a fact).

    It’s much easier to sit all day watching tv and playing playstation than going doorknocking. One aquantance did the former for several years and surprise surprise, no jobs turns up on his lap, despite being well qualified.

    My nieces and nephews actively doorknock and get as much work as they can handle. Whenter it’s a few months, a few weeks, evenings, weekends – they always find work to fit their lives and study.

    The fact that employers in many horticulture industries have to get special permission from immigration to bring in workers from overseas for unskilled jobs, cause they can’t get Kiwis to do them, says a lot.

  96. I think what this sites local natianal troll (photonz1)is saying, is that businesses will out of charity and the goodness of their harts employ people that they have no work for ……………..

  97. Photonz1

    If you approach an employer and offer take all the risk and cost out of taking you on.

    So do you want people to have no unions or protection and essentially work as a slave? I don’t think you’re going to find many people all that keen.

  98. Pentwig, I have never met phil u, he is not my mate. He is an online blogger that I sometimes interact with. You are better to ask him irrelevant question like that yourself.

  99. bj says “and my looking will not create it unless it is an act of charity by someone.”

    That’s utter and complete nonsense bj. I know of so many jobs that have happened like that.

    If you approach an employer and offer take all the risk and cost out of taking you on, they are hugely more likely to give you a job than if they had the huge cost in time and money and risk of advertising, writing permanent contracts, redundancy clauses etc.

    You’re just making really feeble excuses for people not to bother to look for work.

    So is Sam Buchanan. It’s the sort of attitude that if I found in prospective employees, would automatically rule them out as being suitable for employment.

    It’s EXACTLY the attitude you don’t want in an employee.

  100. Dear photonz1, I sincerely apologize for making an inference that you have a mental condition. Although this is nothing to be ashamed of with around 6.8 percent of New Zealand adults having a mental illness. Finding help is the first step to their recovery.

    You and frog are both correct, I made the figure of 0.01% up and have absolutely no evidence to back up my assertion that very few jobs are magically created because people are looking for them. However no evidence has been provided to contradict that assertion either.

    Please accept my apology photonz1 for my unbecoming comments born out of frustration.

    Frog, could you also ask photonz1 to stop saying that I am stupid just because he does not agree with my arguments? I have pushed the envelope because you did not intervene when I previously mentioned my annoyance. I’m an anarchist, if you apply one rule to me and not others, I will rebel :)

  101. toad says “The reality is that even cash-strapped employers will borrow to expand their workforce if they see an opportunity to increase their long-term profitability.”

    It sounds like you’ve never ever employed anybody by those comments.

    For most small businesses (and NZ has a very high proportion of them) it is a big leap to take someone on – a very stressful, costly, risky hurdle.

    Firstly if the person doesn’t work out, doesn’t pull their weight, if trading slows, if they have to be let go – then you need to have spare cash of several thousand for the employment process, several thousands or tens of thosuands for wages, and perhaps several thousand more for severance.

    For most small owner operators that money will come directly from either their own wages, or their savings, if things don’t work out.

    A bad employment situtation, even from no fault like because of lower sales, can mean no income for the owner for months.

    So taking all the risk and cost on board is a massive hurdle for a little business.

    If someone turns up at your door, keen to work whatever hours you have, with no conditions or permanent employment contract, then that takes away many of the costs and the risks.

    The hurdle to employing someone has been made much much smaller.

    Hence the reason the 90 day trial bill significantly lowers the risks and costs of employing people for an employer.

    And with all due respect toad, your statement “The reality is that even cash-strapped employers will borrow ..”

    ….is not reality, at all. The very last thing any cash straped employer wants to do right now, is take on more debt in the middle of a recession caused by taking on too much debt.

    Every business I know is desperately trying to do the exact opposite.

  102. Todd
    Ask your mate philu. As a person eminently qualified to get a job he has not worked for 17 years. Not even interested being employed and lives off us who are.
    Justice?!!

  103. It doesn’t matter if it is advertised Photonz… the job has to be there to be done… and my looking will not create it unless it is an act of charity by someone.

    Some unremarkably average bloke isn’t going to create work by looking for it. Might FIND some work, that is why to look… but this assertion by the WWG is laughable, and your defense of it, futile. The people who are unemployed aren’t generally the exceptional ones. Those tend not to be unemployed long anyway.

    Job creation by wishful thinking will not solve the problem.

  104. Photonz1 – I’m sure you are right that a few people with initiative and drive can sometimes convince and employer to give them a job, but so what?

    Do employers want to waste time with a hundred people a day knocking on their doors asking for work? Do they want a whole bunch of people, who don’t really want to work for them, turning up to ask for a job because WINZ has told them to knock on 50 doors a week?

    Isn’t it better that a few people who are already genuinely highly self-motivated – get noticed when they go door-knocking for jobs – than get lost in the crowd? What may be a good thing if a few people do it, would be a right pain in the neck for employers if a whole bunch of people take it up. I imagine they’d soon stick up a “Sorry, no jobs” notice and stop seeing anyone.

  105. Photonz1

    There has been 200,000 more unemployed since National took over 2008 to dec 2010. We can expect a lot more now. You’re not trying to say they are all not looking for work are you?

    The link you provided states that 70% are found by direct contact and networking. Meaning that 70% of jobs already exist but are not advertised… They are not magically created by people looking for them, which was your initial contention. Again you try to apply one statistic onto your own warped sense of reality.

    There are medications for such problems, I’m being completely serious when I say you should look into getting some help.

    [frog: Todd, your figures are not accurate from what I know, although I can appreciate you are headed in the right direction re that.

    But derogatory references to another commenter's mental health, with no evidential backing, is a very bad look. Please take this as a formal warning. As a regular commenter you will no doubt know the implications if there is a repeat. An apology to photonz1 might help.]

  106. Todd (off the top of his head, with no facts whatsoever) says “I think the scenario you propose will employ around 0.01% of the unemployed population seeking employment”

    If there are 100,000 unemployed, using your figure of 0.01% means there are only ten jobs like that in the whole country. I can think of ten by myself, showing what utter nonsense your statement above is.

    Todd says “25% of jobs might not be advertised (please link to evidence) ”

    That not what I said. Only 25% ARE advertised. 75% are NOT advertised.

    Meaning that for every job you see advertised, there are THREE OTHERS waiting for someone to fill them that you don’t know about.

    I’ve seen that figure and some close to it repeatedly. Here’s the first one I found from the Unitec career centre, which says the figures are 30% advertised, 70% not advertised, which is close enough for me.

    http://www.unitec.ac.nz/index.cfm?AB119ACF-145E-6A3C-46D1-4573F7B772D5

  107. Photonz1

    You’re trying to justify an argument that there is work available and it will in fact be created if people go and look for it. Basing such reasoning on your own narrow experiences. Some of our smaller towns have such low amounts of employment opportunities, they have thousands of applications for positions. In fact some businesses get pissed off with people door knocking all the time.

    I think the scenario you propose will employ around 0.01% of the unemployed population seeking employment. 25% of jobs might not be advertised (please link to evidence) but most of those will be filled through family or associations and word of mouth. That’s not to say people shouldn’t door knock, it is just acknowledging the fact that there is not enough jobs and that is why we have such high unemployment. People want to work photonz1, they don’t want to be slaves though, which I think is where you’re heading with your current insane tangent. People’s enthusiasm for work does not create jobs.

    To ignore that peoples initiative is not the only aspect to finding employment is rather stupid! I’m wondering if we should call the early intervention team to get you assessed? They will probably diagnose you with hyper capitalist dementia and put you on the appropriate rat poison medication. You better start taking your meds phot, or they will lock you up again with a straight jacket. Ah! The capitalist dream huh!

  108. BJ says “Nobody is going to create a job for the purpose of employing someone else. They will create a job to get work done, to fill a need, to increase their production of whatever they are making… but not for the purpose of employing someone.”

    Wrong again. I’ve got at multiple examples, just from my own family.

    My brother-in-law employed someone with downs syndrome for several years when it would have been easier for him not to.

    I employed someone when I was never intending to employ anyone. If they hadn’t come along and asked for a job, I would never have advertised for someone with all the cost and risks.

    My other brother-in-law had a young guy come along who wanted an apprenticeship. He didn’t really want to take one on (as the break even point is in the years after they qualify, and sometimes they leave before that) but the guy was really keen and showed initiative, so he employed him.

    A great many years ago I’ve had jobs myself where none existed. One was general work at a country service station, and there was probably enough work to just cover my costs to the employer. He gave me the job because I asked for one, but he didn’t actually need to, and didn’t really want to employ anyone. The deal was if work ran out I was gone. So it qwas never a position that it was worth advertising for, then taking on the risks and costs of permanent staff.

    My wife also had one job that was created just cause she needed a job. The pay was abysmal (around $70 per week in the 1990s) but after a couple of months her performance led to a real position being created for her.

    A friend got a farm hand job from a farmer who would never had employed anyone and never intended to (and didn’t replace him when he left).

    To ignore such a significant and successful way of getting jobs shows a lack of initiative.

    To call it nonsense (when only 25% of jobs are advertised) is real head in the sand stuff.

    It just sounds like no-hoper excuse #123 for not working.

  109. “The businesses we need to create decent jobs are missing because the people who build decent businesses have all fucked off overseas, because New Zealand cant visualise itself as anything other than a farm.”

    New Zealand can visualise itself as more than a farm, and does, but the government (or at least, large parts of it) can’t. The government attitude to trade negotiations seems to be “give anything away as long as we get market access for the dairy sector”. Forestry seems to be just on the government radar, everything else is barely considered.

    While imagining a government giving a damn about local manufacturing is just a pipe-dream, you’d think the government would at least have noticed tourism. But no, they happily slash the budget of our major tourist service – DOC – and dream that a colby-loving Asia will fall from the heavens to make us rich.

  110. @bjchip 8:21 PM

    Nobody is going to create a job for the purpose of employing someone else. They will create a job to get work done, to fill a need, to increase their production of whatever they are making…

    Exactly. Some on the right seem to presume employers only create jobs if they have some spare cash lying around that they don’t know what to do with. That is bullshit.

    The reality is that even cash-strapped employers will borrow to expand their workforce if they see an opportunity to increase their long-term profitability.

  111. Photonz

    Nobody is going to create a job for the purpose of employing someone else. They will create a job to get work done, to fill a need, to increase their production of whatever they are making… but not for the purpose of employing someone. No matter how willing… and particularly if that person is not on the high end of the skills spectrum. You are stretching massively to justify nonsense.

    How about once in a while, accepting that there is nonsense coming from your side as well. When that happens here I sometimes hop in on your side or just stay out of it entirely. I would invite you to consider the latter as a reasonable strategy. It is NOT necessary to try to defend every single thing any party comes up with.

    BJ

  112. Don’t be ridiculous phot. More people looking for work isn’t going to create jobs. Blaming the victims again for there being a lack of employment opportunities is not appreciated. Do you also blame the starving millions around the world because they don’t plant crops? You are getting more ludicrous as time goes by, try to get some help before it is too late.

  113. bjchip says ” My going out looking for work is no more going to create a job than ……”

    Wrong – it happens all the time.

    I’ve got family members who like me have also taken on people who have approached them for a job, when they weren’t advertising or looking for anyone.

    Often it’s just been temporary, or part time, and quite often that has turned into a full time permanent job.

    Just the process of employing someone often costs thousands of dollars, days or weeks in time, and comes at a great risk if you get the wrong person or if trading conditions change. Most businesses delay significantly before commiting to the process.

    There’s a lot of work out there for people who are prepared to work on a casual basis, or temporarily, or part time, often as a trial.

    I’ve got neices and nephews at uni who doorknock companies for work and often get offered more work than they can handle – for several years they’ve always have work whenever they have wanted it.

    What businesses sometimes find is that when they take someone extra on when they weren’t going to, they often become more productive and grow, leading to even more work available.

    As always, it comes down to attitude. You can spend all your time and effort coming up with 100 reasons why there is no work and why it’s everyoone elses fault, or you can make yourself available and useful to as many people as possible.

    I know which attitude is most likely to get work.

    And as an employer, I know which attitude I’m looking for in a worker, and which attitude makes someone unemployable.

  114. Regardless of the prerequisites applied – MY going out looking for work is no more going to create a job than my wishing for a million bucks is going to provide me a winning lotto ticket. The two things are not related. The WWG reveals its ideological weakness and illogic in this.

    The other points made are fair enough. The market for work has to be fair for both sides, and on balance we Greens think it isn’t all that bad here and Photonz reckons it to be biased heavily in the direction of the worker. I won’t speak to that except to say that I regard that (whichever way it lies) as a small effect compared to the elephant that DBuckley introduced.

    This nation does not envision itself as anything but a big farm.

    I reckon that in addition to the reasons already proposed, this is also from a mistaken apprehension of the principle of comparative advantage. I’ve seen a lot of excuses for what happens around here, but the fact is that while it may appear to be cheaper to be completely dependent on the Chinese for manufacturing of every product it is way short of being the smart thing for us to be doing.

    We’ve got to undo at least a decade ( more? who can tell us the history of this bias? ) of historical hysterical favoritism shown to owners of property over every other class of investment. I would be very happy to see the transaction tax. My understanding is that the more participants in the arrangement the more effective it is, so we should by putting our hands up and saying “us too”.

    Expect that this would piss off the TPP negotiators. Which would be fair because they’ve pissed me off mightily already. After all, we elected them to dictate terms of servitude to the rest of the country… didn’t we?

    BJ

  115. And I would certainly agree with your property owners paradise.

    And yes, employment and unemployment is cyclic, but you cant argue with the fact that there are on average more jobs each year, even though some years (and some sets of years) buck the trend. The graph has lumps, often quite big lumps. We’re in a dip now. But history tells us it should go up again…

  116. @dbuckley 4:03 PM

    You are talking about the very long term, not the medium term that the WWG was referring to. And during that time there have been periods, most notably in the late 1970s and early 1980s and throughout the 1990s, of significant levels of unemployment. There is a high likelihood we are entering another of those periods now.

    The businesses we need to create decent jobs are missing because the people who build decent businesses have all fucked off overseas, because New Zealand cant visualise itself as anything other than a farm.

    Yep, I agree with you on that bit. But I would add “a property owner’s paradise”, given our ridiculous policy settings that tax income from productive enterprise relatively highly but income from capital gains not at all.

  117. In 1961, conveniently 50 years ago, New Zealands population was 2.4m. Today its about 4.3m. Does that mean that all the working aged people added between those two dates are now unemployed?

    Of course it doesn’t. Jobs do get created. The place jobs get created is when businesses (which are created by people) require people to deliver their goods or services so the business makes money.

    And Photo is bang on when he says that ‘Metiria … failed to bold the prerequisite “if there are well functioning labour market institutions”’. The businesses we need to create decent jobs are missing because the people who build decent businesses have all fucked off overseas, because New Zealand cant visualise itself as anything other than a farm.

  118. @Lindsay 12:51 PM

    So if the government introduced fire at will legislation for all employees, abolished the minimum wage, and slashed welfare benefits everything would be hunky dory then?

    Except that countries that have minimal state regulation of the labour market still have unemployment. And millions of people who do have employment live in abject poverty.

  119. toad – is that an invitation?

    Note that in the sentence Metiria bolded, she failed to bold the prerequisite “if there are well functioning labour market institutions”.

    So I suppose we have to find out what they mean by “if there are well functioning labour market institutions” before we know what they mean.

    One problem is too many people beleive there are only a set number of jobs to be filled.

    Like the working group says, being proactuive can CREATE more jobs. I’ve taken on someone in the past when I wasn’t advertising or even looking for someone. They approached me, were really keen, so I took them on part time which quickly became full time.

    I know of a number of people who got jobs with people and companies who were not looking to take anyone on at the time.

    How big the effect of proactively looking for work is? – who knows.

    But it certainly helps increase the numbers in employment.

  120. Good labour market institutions make it easier for businesses to employ. Bad labour market institutions do the opposite. Bad labour market institutions – or anti-employer regimes – featuring repressive hiring and firing laws aided and abetted by heavy-handed employment tribunals, state-fixed wages coupled with overly accessible benefits at high replacement ratios etc discourage or prevent employers from expanding EVEN when that is a possibility.

  121. I can see that photonz1 is lurking, but it seems that even he isn’t able to come up with anything to post on this thread in defence of this nonsense from the WWG.

Comments are closed.