tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post7304558744907079056..comments2024-03-04T16:39:30.609+13:00Comments on Lindsay Mitchell: Persuading people to workLindsay Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04437693272797130833noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-17740803501187345912013-11-22T22:00:24.870+13:002013-11-22T22:00:24.870+13:00Benefits should be pegged at less than half averag...<i> Benefits should be pegged at less than half average HOURLY paid worker rates to actually incentivise</i><br /><br />Still doesn't help. That means someone going from the bludge to working 40hrs a week gets a pay increase that's only worth 20hrs as week.<br /><br />The only way to make a bludger work 40hrs and get 40hrs worth of income from it <b>is if the benefit is zero in the first place</b>. That's just basic mathematics.<br /><br />The minimum wage (not mean wage) is $11/hr or $440 per week. Say we set benefits at half the minimum wage, so the bludger gets $220. <br />When they go to work, they do 40hrs at $11 and get $440 - which is only $220 more than on the bludge - an effective rate of $5.50/hr. And this assumes someone would employ a bludger for full time. <br /><br /><br />Now with no benefits and no minimum wage, well someone bludging now would have the choice of no income whatsoever, or say working 40hrs/week for, I dunno, perhaps $5/hr or $200 per week. But they're $200 better off than having nothing.<br /><br />There's no way to fix welfare if you keep benefits. No way at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-86301639529638058082013-11-22T16:55:56.866+13:002013-11-22T16:55:56.866+13:00MP's just all got a backdated payrise, so not ...MP's just all got a backdated payrise, so not needed, they are already paid way more than the average worker. Less cash, less free time, less sanity.<br /><br />I agree with Frank Davis, once you factor in the costs of travel, petrol, childcare etc, you can be left very badly off. Where is the incentive when the pay is so low in so many industries?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-61764995552131361682013-11-22T15:41:50.081+13:002013-11-22T15:41:50.081+13:00this analysis ignores the costs of getting to and ...this analysis ignores the costs of getting to and from work such as clothing, transport etc and as you so rightly point out even the dumbest can do those sums and figure out that working can actually leave you with less cash and considerably less free time . Benefits should be pegged at less than half average HOURLY paid worker rates to actually incentivise. currently it is a lifestyle optionAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07593041813052592179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-42388870080906213662013-11-21T22:59:38.287+13:002013-11-21T22:59:38.287+13:00the new one will be worse then the Clark/Cullen ad...<i>the new one will be worse then the Clark/Cullen administration.</i><br /><br />the current one is worse than Clark/Cullen.<br /><br />Whether it's increased tax take, increased benefit rates, and of course the mega-nanny statism of lowering the drink-drive limits, Key is already governing <b>to the left of Clark</b> in almost all important areas. <br /><br />Assest sales were pretty much the only policy to the right of Clark, and they've stopped now, without actually selling any significant assets (KiwiBank, TVNZ, RadioNZ, Housing Corp). <br /><br />Add in Key's willingness to shovel money to foreign-owned companies (Warners, Smelter, SkyCity) and crazy superannuation policy, and Key is to the left of Cunliffe.<br /><br />Who knows what a Labour+Greens+NZFirst coalition would actually do ---- and such a coalition would in any case widely be seen as illegitimate (I doubt you'd accept it Lindsay). <br /><br />But in terms of the polices Clark/Cullen enacted during their 3 terms (and especially the first 2) --- versus the polices Key has enacted in his 2 terms so far <b>the current government is further to the left then Clark & co</b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-53177638783190074542013-11-21T21:11:45.866+13:002013-11-21T21:11:45.866+13:00Seems they just become better funded beneficiaries...Seems they just become better funded beneficiaries when they work.<br />Not against them working, just think that the welfare treats them better than so many ordinary hard working people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com