I have figured out Labour's cunning plan!

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › I have figured out Labour's cunning plan!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1908827 28-Nov-2017 10:07

Fred99:

If you want to "project", then the OP seems to be claiming that the majority of voters are too dumb to understand the blindingly obvious.

There is some "weapons grade" distraction and misdirection going on in this thread. Bravo!

Seeing as you seem to be reluctant to provide any supporting information to give weight to your claims or "observations", could you instead outline which of the points in my OP were so "blindingly obvious"?

The point:

That increasing the minimum wage will increase youth unemployment?
That enforcing stricter labour laws will reduce hiring?
That offering free tertiary education is a great way to temporarily hide an underlying increase in youth unemployment?
That making student allowances higher than an JobSeeker benefit will see unemployed people enrol in courses that they have no intention (and sometimes no capability) to complete?

Or perhaps you might indicate where I made any insinuation about the collective comprehension of the "majority of voters"?

TrendMicro

Best TrendMicro deals for antivirus and malware protection(affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1908897 28-Nov-2017 10:59

6FIEND:

That increasing the minimum wage will increase youth unemployment?

An article suggesting that may not be the case, and why it may have become a commonly accepted myth.
That enforcing stricter labour laws will reduce hiring?

I'm rather tired of reading many news reports about prosecution of grossly exploited workers, many of them immigrants and I'm sure that's the tip of an iceberg. If that apparently widespread practice is influencing wage levels in certain sectors of the economy, then it needs to be fixed. It also threatens people running businesses properly - adhering to reasonable labour laws, as they're competing against scumbags who reduce costs using illegal methods.
That offering free tertiary education is a great way to temporarily hide an underlying increase in youth unemployment?

That's an extremely negative view. There's a growing public opinion globally that fee-free tertiary education is desirable. Even in the USA (despite Trump), the majority are in favour (see P21-23) of 4 year fee-free tertiary study.
That making student allowances higher than an JobSeeker benefit will see unemployed people enrol in courses that they have no intention (and sometimes no capability) to complete.

As above, but also you're assuming that there will be no checks on student performance / attendance etc, when I very much doubt that will be the case.

Reciprocity

169 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#1908904 28-Nov-2017 11:09

Fred99:
6FIEND:

I'm against it because it isn't free. It's funded by New Zealand Taxpayers who have a reasonable expectation that their Government will spend the money that is taken from them efficiently and with due diligence.

That's a minority view.

Here’s a quick thought experiment / hypothetical example.

My daughter has just finished High School. She isn’t academically gifted, but she’s good with her hands and has decided that she wants to undertake a Builder’s Apprenticeship. The problem is that she, like all apprentices, needs to purchase her own tools. The cost of these to get started is $2.4k.
Would you commit to you, your partner, your brother, your sister, your mother, your father, your son and your daughter each paying $300 to my daughter so that she can start her apprenticeship?
(If any of those fictional characters are unable to contribute (E.g., because you don’t have a sister or because your daughter is only 4yrs old) then you would need to cover their share as well.)
Would you personally hit up your family, make up the difference, and give my daughter that money?

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1908909 28-Nov-2017 11:22

@Fred99

So, if none of those points were so "blindingly obvious" that you couldn't offer a rebuttal of sorts to each of them... then what was it about my original post that was "blindingly obvious"?

Geektastic

17690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1908915 28-Nov-2017 11:35

Reciprocity:
Fred99:

6FIEND:

I'm against it because it isn't free. It's funded by New Zealand Taxpayers who have a reasonable expectation that their Government will spend the money that is taken from them efficiently and with due diligence.

That's a minority view.

Here’s a quick thought experiment / hypothetical example.

My daughter has just finished High School. She isn’t academically gifted, but she’s good with her hands and has decided that she wants to undertake a Builder’s Apprenticeship. The problem is that she, like all apprentices, needs to purchase her own tools. The cost of these to get started is $2.4k.
Would you commit to you, your partner, your brother, your sister, your mother, your father, your son and your daughter each paying $300 to my daughter so that she can start her apprenticeship?
(If any of those fictional characters are unable to contribute (E.g., because you don’t have a sister or because your daughter is only 4yrs old) then you would need to cover their share as well.)
Would you personally hit up your family, make up the difference, and give my daughter that money?

Interesting point.

Having never been involved in education here in NZ I have no idea whether students at university are expected to buy the equivalent of the tools. I am also surprised that, for the first year at least, there is no way to borrow the tools (after all, if 25% drop out when they realise the reality of being a builder is not that awesome for them, they'll end up with a heap of tools they don't need).

In the same vein is paying for further education later in life. Although I cannot point to anything specific, I have over the years read many things lauding the benefit of being able to go back to university when you are say 40 or 50 and do something to enhance your career, or assist in changing direction.

However if I understand the current rules correctly, if Mr & Mrs A have an income of say $100,000 then they are earning too much to get any sort of support. Yet, Mr A decides he needs to do a 2 year Masters, so his income will be unavailable. Looking at the household budget, he and his wife find that means that their annual income will fall by 50%, their household costs will remain identical and Mr A will need to find money for course fees and materials from the remaining 50% of their income. They decide that they will effectively be in debt to the tune of 20% of the current annual budget as a result. Thus, Mr A cannot re-educate and cannot increase his income and consequent tax contribution. He remains stuck in a job he dislikes and is eventually "restructured" out at 55 and cannot work for the next 10 years other than in menial jobs due to age discrimination.....

Reciprocity

169 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#1908921 28-Nov-2017 11:44

Geektastic, the tools cost was intended to be analogous to University tuition fees...
(the thing that is being made “free”)

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1908924 28-Nov-2017 11:50

Fred99:

6FIEND:

That increasing the minimum wage will increase youth unemployment?

An article suggesting that may not be the case, and why it may have become a commonly accepted myth.

Nice suggestion about what might happen based on an altogether different economy.

Here's what actually happened to youth unemployment in NZ last time there was a substantial change to the minimum rate of pay. (Abolishment of the youth rate in 2008)

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1908981 28-Nov-2017 13:05

6FIEND:

Fred99:

That increasing the minimum wage will increase youth unemployment?

An article suggesting that may not be the case, and why it may have become a commonly accepted myth.

Nice suggestion about what might happen based on an altogether different economy.

Here's what actually happened to youth unemployment in NZ last time there was a substantial change to the minimum rate of pay. (Abolishment of the youth rate in 2008)

Very dishonest attempt to attribute causation to an apparent correlation.

The GFC was the main cause of that jump, and the relative increase of youth unemployment vs adult in the wake of the GFC is simply what happens when new jobs aren't being created in an economic slowdown.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1909022 28-Nov-2017 14:47

Reciprocity:
Here’s a quick thought experiment / hypothetical example.

My daughter has just finished High School. She isn’t academically gifted, but she’s good with her hands and has decided that she wants to undertake a Builder’s Apprenticeship. The problem is that she, like all apprentices, needs to purchase her own tools. The cost of these to get started is $2.4k.
Would you commit to you, your partner, your brother, your sister, your mother, your father, your son and your daughter each paying $300 to my daughter so that she can start her apprenticeship?
(If any of those fictional characters are unable to contribute (E.g., because you don’t have a sister or because your daughter is only 4yrs old) then you would need to cover their share as well.)
Would you personally hit up your family, make up the difference, and give my daughter that money?

Interesting.

I notice that there aren't too many advocates of "free tertiary education" jumping at the opportunity to participate in your experiment...

shk292

2692 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1909025 28-Nov-2017 14:52

Fred99:

Very dishonest attempt to attribute causation to an apparent correlation.

The GFC was the main cause of that jump, and the relative increase of youth unemployment vs adult in the wake of the GFC is simply what happens when new jobs aren't being created in an economic slowdown.

Sorry, your post appears to have been truncated - the bit where you showed that the GFC caused the unemployment rate in NZ to increase dramatically and that the change in wage rate had no affect, was cut off the bottom.

Either that or you've criticised the previous poster in a rather hypocritical way

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1909037 28-Nov-2017 15:25

shk292:

Fred99:

Very dishonest attempt to attribute causation to an apparent correlation.

The GFC was the main cause of that jump, and the relative increase of youth unemployment vs adult in the wake of the GFC is simply what happens when new jobs aren't being created in an economic slowdown.

Sorry, your post appears to have been truncated - the bit where you showed that the GFC caused the unemployment rate in NZ to increase dramatically and that the change in wage rate had no affect, was cut off the bottom.

Either that or you've criticised the previous poster in a rather hypocritical way

It wasn't truncated.

The GFC was the cause of reduced GDP growth and increased unemployment globally, and as I said, that's the main cause for the jump in the figures.

That's not "hypocritical" - it's the honest truth.

If you disagree - then prove me wrong.

sen8or

1603 posts

Uber Geek

#1909063 28-Nov-2017 16:07

I am not against "free tertiary education" at all, both of my kids will benefit from it in the next few years, but I do firmly believe there needs to be a rider / condition on the "free education" with the person bound to contribute to NZ economy for x period and only written off if suitable grades (pass marks) are achieved.

I don't know how the mechanics of it all would work, linked to IRD somehow I guess, but if "society" is paying for tertiary education (which lets face it, is to give yourself a better chance at earning better money) then that "debt" should be repaid to society.

sen8or

1603 posts

Uber Geek

#1909078 28-Nov-2017 17:00

Fred99:

shk292:

Fred99:

Very dishonest attempt to attribute causation to an apparent correlation.

The GFC was the main cause of that jump, and the relative increase of youth unemployment vs adult in the wake of the GFC is simply what happens when new jobs aren't being created in an economic slowdown.

Sorry, your post appears to have been truncated - the bit where you showed that the GFC caused the unemployment rate in NZ to increase dramatically and that the change in wage rate had no affect, was cut off the bottom.

Either that or you've criticised the previous poster in a rather hypocritical way

It wasn't truncated.

The GFC was the cause of reduced GDP growth and increased unemployment globally, and as I said, that's the main cause for the jump in the figures.

That's not "hypocritical" - it's the honest truth.

If you disagree - then prove me wrong.

If it was the "main cause" wouldnt you expect to see the growth in unemployment in any one segment broadly inline with any other segment?

Given that the growth in the 15-19 year old unemployment rate is 3-4 times the average, it stands to reason that this segment was more disadvantaged than other sections, for some random reason not identified elsewhere..............

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1909173 28-Nov-2017 20:01

sen8or:

If it was the "main cause" wouldnt you expect to see the growth in unemployment in any one segment broadly inline with any other segment?

Given that the growth in the 15-19 year old unemployment rate is 3-4 times the average, it stands to reason that this segment was more disadvantaged than other sections, for some random reason not identified elsewhere..............

If you were an employer facing a downturn in sales, would you rather lay off current (presumably loyal productive etc) employees - or defer employing new trainees?

elpenguino

2908 posts

Uber Geek

#1909232 28-Nov-2017 22:19

sen8or:

I am not against "free tertiary education" at all, both of my kids will benefit from it in the next few years, but I do firmly believe there needs to be a rider / condition on the "free education" with the person bound to contribute to NZ economy for x period and only written off if suitable grades (pass marks) are achieved.

I don't know how the mechanics of it all would work, linked to IRD somehow I guess, but if "society" is paying for tertiary education (which lets face it, is to give yourself a better chance at earning better money) then that "debt" should be repaid to society.

I tend to agree with your position. While I believe that in general we want society to have any person educated who wants to be, we have to draw the line somewhere. There will need be some kind of system to encourage excellence and discourage seat warmers (if there isnt already). This might take the form of restricted entry/progression numbers, minimum entry marks , pre-qualifications etc.

A bonded period would encourage recipients to let some benefit return to NZ

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

1 | 2 | 3 | 4