"Unlike many other countries New Zealand doesn't have a finite period for how long the dole can be claimed, change that, and you may change some attitudes. That may sound hard but the real mismatch is the number of foreign workers we're required to bring in to fill vacancies, compared to the number of locals on the dole."
Why isn't he explaining why nobody should be expected to work for the minimum wage, how rapacious employers are getting away with treating immigrants like slave labour, how New Zealanders shouldn't have to work in dead-end jobs?? Capitalist muppet.
Seriously, many of the people who come into New Zealand and work at jobs Kiwis don't want to do have come from countries where the dole doesn't even exist - let alone have finite terms. That's why they have a work ethic.
*Fifty six percent have been on welfare for more than a year.
8 comments:
The dole for many is early superannuation. Many on the dole don't want to work as they are already enjoying early retirement.
Well, Soper's just a Labour party communist, not a hell of a lot different to a National Party communist, and they all like to get het up over things which in the big picture are not that significant.
(Partly because its helps to draw attention away from the big picture.)
Unemployment benefit (please correct me if my stats are wrong) in dollar terms is less than 1% of the govt's total spend.
By comparison, core govt services (a laughable misnomer, in many instances MBIE for example, it should be termed work for the dole), is something like 9%.
We all agree that long term unemployment benefit is corrosive to society, but we should see it in a true perspective.
In terms of social corrosion, its only the tip of the iceberg.
We need to cut $20 billion from govt spending (as a start) and its probably possible to do that without cutting the unemployment spend by a dollar.
Time limits for the dole are great. I suggest zero. Time limits for super would be good too. also zero.
We need to cut $20 billion from govt spending (as a start) and its probably possible to do that without cutting the unemployment spend by a dollar.
We should start by stopping the spending that does the most damage: that's the dole, the rest of welfare, super (which is just dole for old people), government schools, and government hospitals. Stop the lot. Then you've $60billion to play with: setting corporate tax to zero, and capping the maximum amount e.g. successful Kiwis have to pay at say $50,000 should do the trick.
I'm on the same page as Redbaiter generally and suspect we have a large bunch of people who are not really interested in working but that doesn't mean we ignore the question of how we value work. We can always import labour to do the jobs Kiwi's won't but at some point we need to contemplate what a job should be worth. That a desperate someone from Iraq will do it for half what you would doesn't automatically make you greedy. We have all sorts of shortages (like truck drivers as we keep hearing) but maybe there needs to be some consideration of the wages as part of working out why there is a shortage. Maybe the market is sending a signal that if you want good, reliable and motivated people you need to pay them more than, say, $18 per hour when significant skills are required.
" Maybe the market is sending a signal that if you want good, reliable and motivated people you need to pay them more than, say, $18 per hour when significant skills are required."
But the labour "market" isn't a freely functioning market.
I would argue (ironically along with Sue Bradford) that the welfare state subsidises employers. WFF, AS, and non-benefit assistance push up incomes (= wage rates) for favoured groups. Bill English said that the government would be the biggest winner from councils adopting the living wage as govt would pay out less means-tested assistance and collect more tax. This time the ratepayer is the loser.
My point is that the labour market is very distorted by state intervention. Employers need to pay more in return for productivity and less in tax. That would be the first correction.
Bill English said that the government would be the biggest winner
and John Key said Hellen's policies were communism by stealth and then proceeded not to change a thing
(and was only ever asked about it on RNZ National, which frankly justifies ten times their budget in perpetuity)
Employers need to pay more in return for productivity and less in tax.
Employers and other corporates and high-value kiwis should pay zero tax.
NZ workers are far less productive than those in Oz, US, or UK and consequently our wages need to fall significantly, not rise..
Just came across this after a long while --- what NZ missed in 2005!
drop all benefits to the able-bodied and scrap the statutory minimum wage", impose a lifetime limit on receipt of benefits, gradually raise the age of eligibility for superannuation, cut the top rate of tax, and restrict to $500,000 the amount of tax wealthy individuals would pay in a year
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/decision-08/looking-to-the-election-28655/465967/Don-Brash-I-ve-been-hiding-too-long
Now more than ever - of course, if you read his autobiography, Brash is more radial than what he called that "Labour lite" agenda: these day's he'd start by cancelling all benefits - including super - and selling all government hospitals, schools, and other assets, corporate tax rate to zero. In other words simple common sense
Post a Comment