Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Questions on youth rates

Here's a question for you.

You have a business selling burgers/fried chicken/coffee. Two people apply for a job. One is a sixteen-year-old who's never worked before. The other is older, with some experience and a good work record. The government says you must pay them equally. Whom do you employ?

Here's another question:

You started a business. You own it. Without you, this business would not exist. Whose business is it whom you employ and what you pay them?

Here are some supplementary question:

Why do Sue Bradford, Matt McCarten and Ross Wilson think they have a right to dictate to small-business owners whom they employ and on what conditions? Why do they think the law can ignore economic reality? And what will they say to the sixteen-year-olds who can't find employment because they're not yet worth what employers can afford to pay them?

LINKS: Bill scrapping youth rates to pass first hurdle - Stuff
Consultant questions abolishing youth rates - Newstalk ZB

TAGS: Minimum Wage, Economics, Politics-NZ

Labels: ,

8 Comments:

Blogger Maria von Trapp said...

No the government does NOT say you must pay them equally. It does NOT at all. All it talks about is the minimum. One would expect the older worker with more experience and skill to be paid more.

What this law would change is people with the same skills and identical tasks being paid differently because the law allows for discrimination.

Your argument reeks of the "minimum wage vs no minimum wage" argument and that's wrong. We HAVE minimum wages, so allowing for age discrimination given that system is wrong.

"and what will they say to the sixteen-year-olds who can't find employment because they're not yet worth what employers can afford to pay them?"

actually PC, research does not support your claim that increasing youth rates leads to decreased youth employment.

PC, this post is full of rhetoric with no proof and fudging of issues. You're brighter than that mate.

2/22/2006 01:56:00 pm  
Anonymous Robert Winefield said...

"No the government does NOT say you must pay them equally"

A collection of political-pin-heads who, when lined up arse-hole to arse-hole, couldn't organise a beer-fart in a brewery are going to dictate to me the wages I will pay someone?

If the prospective employee doesn't like the terms of the job - either what it requires or what it pays - he or she can bugger off.
That is ~their~ choice. What conditions I set for the job I am ~prepared~ to hire someone for is ~my~ choice.

Freedom = people trading with one another voluntarily. Governments need only serve as an impartial umpire between disputing citizens.

The reason the employment market is screwed up is because the government is not ~only~ the umpire, but one of the bloody players as well!

If the government stopped sticking it's oar into my business (and setting up and running tax-payer-funded businesses in competition to my own - as it does in the Science field) then ~one would expect~ that there would be more businesses competing for employees - wages would rise ~naturally.~

In other words the only reason the employment market is fucked it because Cullen can't keep his hands off the profits I use to grow my business.

2/22/2006 07:59:00 pm  
Blogger Maria von Trapp said...

employment market fucked?

huh? say again?

actually robert WINEfield, we have the lowest unemployment levels in years, especially compared with when the government tried the hands off approach.

they tried. it failed. new government. now it's working.

btw, it's YOUR choice to set up business in this country with the conditions we have. using your logic, if you don't like it: fuck off.

2/22/2006 10:34:00 pm  
Anonymous george said...

Nonsense Maria. Any reduction in unemployment in NZ is in spite of the gummint not because of it. Except of course if you throw in the public sector. They have hired enough of them to actually fill a stadium. This wad of drones, consumed with the minutia of its own existence, is not a productive arm of society, it is a parasitic one. Next time you see the Cake Tin packed for a test match, picture the crowd as just the newcomers since Labour eased their arses onto the treasury benches; picture the weekly wage bill for the crowd. Somehow the rest of New Zealand is footing it for them. Now 4 weeks holiday is the go, I have not had that in four years. To blazes with your logic too madam.

2/23/2006 01:09:00 am  
Anonymous Justin said...

Maria, you miss the point, which is astounding, because PC was so clear. No doubt you’ve been to a few union rark-ups, so you’re emotionally invested in your argument. But FWIW, here goes: The youth rates/minimum wage argument is one in the same. i.e. a low-paying job is preferable to no job, which is what happens when you legislate arbitrary price/wage floors

Minimum wage: A company operating on the margins finds itself over-capacity. It considers hiring another employee, but the minimum wage is more than it chooses to afford, so it just redistributes the work. The minimum wage has prevented the creation of a job.

Youth rates: A company operating on the margins advertises for a job on the minimum wage. Two applicants are qualified: the two examples that PC provided. Now, if the company was allowed to pay the youngster a lower rate, there’s a chance they might get the job. But as it stands, as PC alludes, the older applicant will invariably be hired over the younger. The abolition of youth rates makes it harder for younger people to get jobs. You’re screwing over the very people whose interests you claim to represent.

2/23/2006 09:05:00 am  
Blogger noizy said...

"A collection of political-pin-heads who, when lined up arse-hole to arse-hole, couldn't organise a beer-fart in a brewery are going to dictate to me the wages I will pay someone?"

Well, they do that aleady, don't they? Would you prefer the abolition of the minimum wage entirely? Get some of those kids into some sweat shops sewing t-shirts for 20c an hour - then NZ might be competitive on the world markets, eh?

"But as it stands, as PC alludes, the older applicant will invariably be hired over the younger. The abolition of youth rates makes it harder for younger people to get jobs."

KFC, McDonalds, Burger King will continue to employ youth workers, as youth workers tend to be the only people who can stand working in those environments. As Maria points out, employment rates are at an all-time low. Older unemployed workers are hardly baying at the doors of low-pay businesses for a McJob that might support them through tech/varsity.

Why is the right working so hard to defend the profit margins of Ronald McDonald?

2/23/2006 11:00:00 am  
Anonymous Robert Winefield said...

"btw, it's YOUR choice to set up business in this country with the conditions we have. using your logic, if you don't like it: fuck off."

Dear Maria, I beat you to it.

I left that Statist Little Backwater a year and a half ago and I have absolutely no intention of coming back if I can help it... No matter ~how many campaigns the Government mounts to entice me to return - at your expence~

By the way that is Robert WINEfield PhD.

2/23/2006 01:05:00 pm  
Anonymous Simon said...

When automated ordering replaces a lot of these exploited workers jobs it will be interesting to see the reactions then.

“Why do Sue Bradford, Matt McGarten, Ross Wilson think they have a right to dictate to small-business owners whom they employ and on what conditions?”

"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business."

Eric Hoffer

2/23/2006 10:27:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home