Random Politics

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Save us the dramatics eh?

Yer dreamin'.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Um . . . it seriously is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum...irical_studies

I know reading isn't the strong suit of the average leftie but your article mainly dealt with the controversy of whether increasing in minimum wage affected employment rate generally, which I did not comment on. On the issue of how the young and unskilled are affected, the most pertinent passages included the following words:

According to a 1978 article in the American Economic Review, 90 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that the minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers.[76]

A 2000 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson reports that of a sample of 308 American Economic Association economists, 45.6% fully agreed with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers", 27.9% agreed with provisos, and 26.5% disagreed. The authors of this study also reweighted data from a 1990 sample to show that at that time 62.4% of academic economists agreed with the statement above, while 19.5% agreed with provisos and 17.5% disagreed. They state that the reduction on consensus on this question is "likely" due to the Card and Krueger research and subsequent debate.[77]

A similar survey in 2006 by Robert Whaples polled PhD members of the American Economic Association. Whaples found that 37.7% of respondents supported an increase in the minimum wage, 14.3% wanted it kept at the current level, 1.3% wanted it decreased, and 46.8% wanted it completely eliminated.[78]

Surveys of labor economists have found a sharp split on the minimum wage. Fuchs et al. (1998) polled labor economists at the top 40 research universities in the United States on a variety of questions in the summer of 1996. Their 65 respondents split exactly 50-50 when asked if the minimum wage should be increased. They argued that the different policy views were not related to views on whether raising the minimum wage would reduce teen employment (the median economist said there would be a reduction of 1%), but on value differences such as income redistribution.[79] Daniel B. Klein and Stewart Dompe conclude, on the basis of previous surveys, "the average level of support for the minimum wage is somewhat higher among labor economists than among AEA members."[80]

In 2007, Klein and Dompe conducted a non-anonymous survey of supporters of the minimum wage who had signed the "Raise the Minimum Wage" statement published by the Economic Policy Institute. They found that a majority signed on the grounds that it transferred income from employers to workers, or equalized bargaining power between them in the labor market. In addition, a majority considered disemployment to be a moderate potential drawback to the increase they supported.

It doesn't look so rosy any more, does it? More importantly, currently nearly 1 out of every 5 youth does not have a job (http://www.dol.govt.nz/lmr/lmr-hlfs.asp). In these strainten times and with the likelihood of substantial layoffs of more skilled and older workers from the state sector coming, which entails greater competition for jobs, you support the potential risk of throwing more youths under the bus in the name of those having jobs getting to live better and fairer redistribution?

And there's something else you haven't addressed. The relevant legislation requires the Minister of Labour to review the minimum wage every year taking into account all the relevant evidence and statutory criteria. If you care about balancing the interests of everybody, including the need of the jobless to have the best opportunity to get a job, why not simply respect the fucking annual review process instead of cheering the yelling out of some uncosted "target" for the purpose of electioneering.

No, all that needs to happen is that businesses pass on the extra cost to consumers. As I said, 300,000 people get a better standard of living and the rest of us pay a little extra.
Also calling Labour "extreme left" is another example you using labels to try and bolster your own argument. Save us the dramatics eh?

Err, that's wonderful if all you care about is redistribution. Again, once more, I generally support wealth redistribution but that can't be the only goal of any serious government. Your model assumes that everyone will keep on maintaining the same levels of consumption after paying "a little extra". You're also assuming that growth by consumption in NZ in our present and likely future conditions will improve our all important balance of payments and prospects of economic growth (assuming once again that you're not so ignorant as to believe that redistribution should be the only goal). FFS, do you realise that we import way more than we export?

And, yes, I stand by my view that Labour's economic views are extreme left. This is the political party which is prepared to throw our one and only credible, nearly-impossible-to-evade tax (i.e. GST) structure under the bus in the name of GST free fruit and veges. This is a party which, in the name of socking the rich, had created a tax structure that saw the explosion of the use/creation of personal trusts and all manner of tax evasion. Hey fuck the consequences so long as we make the right noises! This is the party which, in the name of obsessive centralisation, proposed to disband the Serious Fraud Office and to merge it with the police and all those average police officers who cannot even string together a coherent sentence. This is also the political party that threw out the ultimate fiscal bomb (i.e. perpetual interest-free student loans) as an election bribe.

Oh and I forgot how the party of compassion and common folks spent years allowing Blue Chip and all those finance companies to victimise its constituents! Need I go on?

BTW, Lightspeed: go play with your blowup dolls.

[cyc]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...ction-policies

Goff also attacked opposition to the increase in minimum wage saying it would not cost jobs and everyone deserved to earn enough to live on.

"Every time we lifted the wage under the last Labour government, unemployment went down."

Umm, yeah, correlation = causation! RIIIIIGHT!

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by cyc

BTW, Lightspeed: go play with your blowup dolls.

I will, with the one I've named cyc. He likes it up the butt.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

I know reading isn't the strong suit of the average leftie but your article mainly dealt with the controversy of whether increasing in minimum wage affected employment rate generally, which I did not comment on. On the issue of how the young and unskilled are affected, the most pertinent passages included the following words:

My reading comprehension?
Two of the surveys you posted (2006&2007) didn't even mention the young and unskilled. Further out of the other two surveys only one refers to any measurable impact - a reduction of 1%! And yes, I'm not counting the 33 year old survey. Whats-more in the studies I linked to that did mention youth unemployment (not surveys) the measurable impact of a 10% increase in the minimum wage had a had a lower limit of 0-1% increase. Claiming that the level of impact isn't up for dispute is wrong and it's quite possible the effect might be statistically insignificant.

Originally Posted by cyc

More importantly, currently nearly 1 out of every 5 youth does not have a job (http://www.dol.govt.nz/lmr/lmr-hlfs.asp). In these strainten times and with the likelihood of substantial layoffs of more skilled and older workers from the state sector coming, which entails greater competition for jobs, you support the potential risk of throwing more youths under the bus in the name of those having jobs getting to live better and fairer redistribution?

Don't just think of this as redistribution, think of this also a cost of living policy, a wage increase because workers need it to live. Also I'm not sure that skilled workers from the public sector will be competing for jobs in the low wage industry sector.

Originally Posted by cyc

And, yes, I stand by my view that Labour's economic views are extreme left.

Yep, they've really let themselves go in the last few years
http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2008

[[LvN]N3misiS]

Originally Posted by pervy

Sources?

Measuring up – How does the New Zealand’s tertiary education system compare?

Each year, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) publishes Education at a Glance, a collection of indicators that compares the performance of the education systems of its member countries. The indicators in this report give us a good opportunity to view the performance of our system against the systems of other countries. Despite some limitations, the Education at a Glance indicators give us the most reliable and most complete basis for comparison currently available to us.

Measuring up looks at the tertiary education indicators and examines how New Zealand performs on the most important indicators.

Author: Roger Smyth & Warren Smart, Tertiary Sector Performance Analysis & Reporting [Ministry of Education]

Date Published: September 2008

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

My reading comprehension?
Two of the surveys you posted (2006&2007) didn't even mention the young and unskilled. Further out of the other two surveys only one refers to any measurable impact - a reduction of 1%! And yes, I'm not counting the 33 year old survey. Whats-more in the studies I linked to that did mention youth unemployment (not surveys) the measurable impact of a 10% increase in the minimum wage had a had a lower limit of 0-1% increase. Claiming that the level of impact isn't up for dispute is wrong and it's quite possible the effect might be statistically insignificant.

Look, the two most pertinent surveys where these people were asked straightforwardedly whether an increase in minimum wage will have a negative impact on the employment of the young and unskilled, an overwhelming majority of them said it will at least have some impact. You can deny this as much as you want.

[Lightspeed]

Surveys about people's opinion? Weak, weak.

[fixed_truth]

Yeah but you're missing the point, the degree of impact was not a consideration in these surveys of opinion.
And you've left out the introductory summary of that section.

Surveys of economists
Until the 1990s, economists generally agreed that raising the minimum wage reduced employment. This consensus was weakened when some well-publicized empirical studies showed the opposite, although others confirmed the original view. Today's consensus, if one exists, is that increasing the minimum wage has, at worst, minor negative effects.[75]

Again I'm not saying that unemployment won't increase in this group, I'm saying that the level of unemployment very well could be statistically insignificant depending on other relevant considerations.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

My reading comprehension?
Whats-more in the studies I linked to that did mention youth unemployment (not surveys) the measurable impact of a 10% increase in the minimum wage had a had a lower limit of 0-1% increase. Claiming that the level of impact isn't up for dispute is wrong and it's quite possible the effect might be statistically insignificant.

So what if surveys are involved? Oh yeah because somehow economists belonging to probably the most esteemed group of economists will just randomly answer some survey by pulling answers out of their asses. Do you even know who are members of the AEA? Don't be such a jackass.

Also I'm not sure that skilled workers from the public sector will be competing for jobs in the low wage industry sector.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Are you seriously so dense to think that the minimum wage only gets served up in the "low wage industry sector" and do you REALLY think all laid off public servants are skilled workers? Here's a clue: people who daily sit 20 metres from my work desk have been working on restructuring proposals (some still at proposal stage; others actually implemented) for government departments involving the cutting of so called "back room" admin staff, telephone operators, and the like. My colleagues have been aware of responses to the proposals by workers complaining that they feel they may effectively be left to compete for minimum wage or near minimum wage jobs if the departments involved are not able to find them substitute roles. These are words straight from the horses' mouth. The PSA has, as far as I am aware, sought training allowances and the like for many of such people owing to the same concerns.

And when you inflate the minimum wage (I notice that you've never addressed what's so wrong with respecting the yearly review process), you can be sure that those who are genuinely a touch above minimum-wage level skills-wise will be unhappy at the perceived lack of reward for those extra abilities and will be seeking rises as well. I simply don't understand why ignorant lefties like you have this mentality that if someone isn't making enough, the first port of call should always be to wring more $$ out of nasty businesses who deliberately under-pay to make these people suffer. This country's output is pathetic and our economy is inefficient -- try and encourage your pack of useless idiots to acknowledge that and do something about it. Honestly, Labour's R&D tax breaks are a good start -- they really should stick with things along those lines instead of risking throwing the vulnerable under the proverbial bus.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Surveys about people's opinion? Weak, weak.

CONTEXT, jerkoff. They aren't surveying ignoramuses like you.

[Lightspeed]

They're surveying people. People who are just as biased as everyone else. When it comes to scientific rigour, expert opinion is right at the bottom.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

They're surveying people. People who are just as biased as everyone else. When it comes to scientific rigour, expert opinion is right at the bottom.

Okay, we'll do it the Crackspeed way: scrap all court hearings involving expert evidence, select committee hearing involving expert evidence, and ANYTHING involving so called experts. I mean, what would they know?

How do you actually live to your age being so completely and utterly stupid?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

So what if surveys are involved? Oh yeah because somehow economists belonging to probably the most esteemed group of economists will just randomly answer some survey by pulling answers out of their asses. Do you even know who are members of the AEA? Don't be such a jackass.

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Yeah but you're missing the point, the degree of impact was not a consideration in these surveys of opinion.

Originally Posted by cyc

I simply don't understand why ignorant lefties like you have this mentality that if someone isn't making enough, the first port of call should always be to wring more $$ out of nasty businesses who deliberately under-pay to make these people suffer.

The impact on the number of people employed can be addressed with other policy to a point, keeping the minimum wage low to increase demand for cheap labour is more detrimental in the long run. The reason people advocate a higher minimum wage is because baseless right wingers (name calling derp) like you keep up the lie that higher wages will come with increased productivity when in fact despite labour productivity increasing real wages keep declining. The majority of minimum wage workers are employed big companies that can afford higher wage costs. But you keep up your fight for big business. Puppet.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by cyc

How do you actually live to your age being so completely and utterly stupid?

In just the same way http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1uJD1O3L08 can happen.

Actually, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylAHWVuPNus is worth a watch imagining it's lightspeed with the gun.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by aR Que

Biggest effect min. wage increases have is on workshops, particularly small ones, taking on apprentices.

Yeah in some sectors where people pretty much undergo training for the duration of their employment (& where having your ticket generally means progressive income brackets) it might be a good idea to set up some sort of apprenticeship or internship programs with a lower rate. Not to be abused by fast food or low-level retail jobs.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by cyc

Okay, we'll do it the Crackspeed way: scrap all court hearings involving expert evidence, select committee hearing involving expert evidence, and ANYTHING involving so called experts. I mean, what would they know?

How do you actually live to your age being so completely and utterly stupid?

I certainly would do that when trying to ascertain the empirical data around what impact an increase on the minimum wage has.

Expert opinion definitely has its value. I trust it when its something I don't care about. Or when it's not feasible to know for myself or it's the best knowledge available. Obviously it's essential in government and the legal system. But what reaches the government, the legal system, the media, etc., is by no means the final word. Nor is it particularly strong when stood up against empirical data.

[GRiM ReeFer]

poor people are only poor because they are lazy, or dumb.
lazy and dumb people will not benefit from higher education,
only highly educated people can be trusted to make the right decisions.
Cyc is an elitist wanker, with a 2 inch dick.

[CCS]

Sounds like you're jealous of his little dick, bro!

[^BITES^]

Originally Posted by GRiM ReeFer

poor people are only poor because they are lazy, or dumb.
lazy and dumb people will not benefit from higher education,
only highly educated people can be trusted to make the right decisions.
Cyc is an elitist wanker, with a 2 inch dick.

Odd since ... this makes you sound like the elitist while his post makes sense and can be seen in current society.

[GRiM ReeFer]

Originally Posted by CCS

Sounds like you're jealous of his little dick, bro!

yes.. it's true

[GRiM ReeFer]

Originally Posted by ^BITES^

Odd since ... this makes you sound like the elitist while his post makes sense and can be seen in current society.

um, you realize the highlighted bits are his view point, not mine... have you been following this thread?

[GRiM ReeFer]

Originally Posted by CCS

Sounds like you're jealous of his little dick, bro!

and the deliberate "state a few opinions as fact then insult anyone who disagrees" format was also to highlight what a little prick he is.

[CCS]

orly?!

[^BITES^]

Originally Posted by GRiM ReeFer

um, you realize the highlighted bits are his view point, not mine... have you been following this thread?

I have been .. oddly enough you haven't spurgged into it as regularly as everyone else so excuse my inability to decode your ramblings, I've also learned to create sentences that aren't stupid. The person above your post .. wasn't the person you were addressing, infact that person hadn't posted for nearly 12 hours and since then several other people replied ... some were also agreeing with his points .. so apart from your last comment it wasn't specific.

So let me fix it up for you since you've gone down the "I'm a smart ass" path but seem to be unable to make a sentence. Hell for a freebie I'll even fix up the fact you can't find SHIFT or CAPS LOCK (special shift derp).

Originally Posted by GRiM ReeFer

Cyc, so you think poor people are only poor because they are lazy, or dumb.
You also think that lazy and dumb people will not benefit from higher education.
You think that only highly educated people can be trusted to make the right decisions.
You Cyc, are an elitist wanker, with a 2 inch dick.

Fuck that was hard wasnt it?(TBH the source material here was a little thick). If it was .. fuck try using the quote button and just post gurgles.
Thinking before pushing Submit, try something new, splash out.

[^BITES^]

Originally Posted by GRiM ReeFer

and the deliberate "state a few opinions as fact then insult anyone who disagrees" format was also to highlight what a little prick he is.

Do you mean like this?

Originally Posted by GRiM ReeFer

poor people are only poor because they are lazy, or dumb.
lazy and dumb people will not benefit from higher education,
only highly educated people can be trusted to make the right decisions.
Cyc is an elitist wanker, with a 2 inch dick.

He hasnt stated "facts" or at any time said "my word is the laaaw!!" (/cue Stallone) hes supplied evidence to correlate it, and expressed an opinion.
Only ones who have defined "facts" have been the counter arguement, and then further attempted to errode the data based on where/how it was obtained... like hes actually part of some secret poll/survey conspiracy O_o?

[GRiM ReeFer]

drama much

found the quote button

Originally Posted by ^BITES^

He hasnt stated "facts" or at any time said "my word is the laaaw!!"

Originally Posted by cyc

And the standard literature is quite clear that as a rule increase in minimum wage hit unskilled youths hard. It's not seriously up for dispute

?? I could quote all the insults aimed at opposition posters intelligence if you'd like? oh and being a gramma nazi is rather low, but hey I can play... hasn't has a ' in it... woooooot?

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

The impact on the number of people employed can be addressed with other policy to a point, keeping the minimum wage low to increase demand for cheap labour is more detrimental in the long run. The reason people advocate a higher minimum wage is because baseless right wingers (name calling derp) like you keep up the lie that higher wages will come with increased productivity when in fact despite labour productivity increasing real wages keep declining. The majority of minimum wage workers are employed big companies that can afford higher wage costs. But you keep up your fight for big business. Puppet.

Hahaha. Oh this is funny. What you don't realise is that I too dislike an excessively low minimum wage. What's different between you and I is that: (1) I don't believe in usurping a statutorily-mandated review process in the name of electioneering; (2) I am not a single-issue idiot and, therefore, I don't believe in taking undue risks with the employment prospects of an already unlucky and frankly abandoned segment of society so we can do a bit of redistribution in a time of shitty economy in favour of one group; and (3) I am actually a social liberal but I don't support/not support policies purely on the basis of whether they sound nice and compassionate.

Seriously, what do you do for a job? Have you ever done anything that requires some sort of contact with people actually in business? "Keep fighting for big business"? Try harder, pal. Yeah I am a corporate lawyer but I've actually done work that's actually helped real people overcome extremely unfair treatment by corporates -- with my own time and money. What have you done for the oppressed and unfotunate other than sitting around wanking on about how much National sucks?

[^BITES^]

Originally Posted by GRiM ReeFer

drama much

found the quote button

?? I could quote all the insults aimed at opposition posters intelligence if you'd like? oh and being a gramma nazi is rather low, but hey I can play... hasn't has a ' in it... woooooot?

Jesus H Christ. Are you taking english lessons from Bodycount?

You even misspelt "Grammar". Give up.

[GRiM ReeFer]

stop being a drama queen.

[A Corpse]

Drammar queen.

[GRiM ReeFer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM

[[WanG] Wandarah]

No idea where you got the idea for the 'reefer' bit in your name, eh.

[GRiM ReeFer]

sticks and stones mate, sticks and stones.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

What you don't realise is that I too dislike an excessively low minimum wage. What's different between you and I is that: (1) I don't believe in usurping a statutorily-mandated review process in the name of electioneering;

Since when has the Govt. needed a review to implement or not implement anything? Besides because the Household Labour Force Survey’s measure of unemployment has a sampling error of plus or minus 10,000; then the DOL projections of the unemployment increase from increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour can’t be statistically significant in the context of the measure of unemployment. Which was the case with last year’s review (where $15 was a 17.6% wage increase). http://blog.greens.org.nz/wp-content...review2010.pdf pg 14-18

Originally Posted by cyc

(2) I am not a single-issue idiot and, therefore, I don't believe in taking undue risks with the employment prospects of an already unlucky and frankly abandoned segment of society so we can do a bit of redistribution in a time of shitty economy in favour of one group; and (3) I am actually a social liberal but I don't support/not support policies purely on the basis of whether they sound nice and compassionate.

And you’re an idiot if you still can’t comprehend that empirical studies show the correlation between increasing the minimum wage and youth employment is “statistically insignificant”. But that’s not surprising from someone who things that Labour's economic views are extreme left.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Since when has the Govt. needed a review to implement or not implement anything?

Because not every fucking governmental process is the subject of a mandatory annual review? Because in this case the law clearly mandates a review which you apparently think will support your bum boy's argument. If you're so confident, why not wait for it?

Who's the idiot again, leftie? And are you going to actually dispute any of the economic lunacies I've detailed re: Labour? Everything I put there is instantly verifiable as being true. Then again, what can one expect from someone who thinks that every laid off/made redundant civil servant is a skilled worker?

[cyc]

At page 15, I found that the Department of Labour calculated that increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour could result in a “potential loss in job growth” of 4,280 – 5,710 jobs. That’s very different from putting 6000 people out of work. A potential loss in job growth can occur without a solitary person being put out of work. It all depends on the wider economic policy settings.

GROWTH DOESN'T MATTER. Dear Metiria Turei, time to have a read of Friedman's The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth.*

* For our resident brainless left-wing idiots: It's BENJAMIN M Friedman I am talking about. He's a liberal and not Milton "Chicago Fucking School" Friedman.

[cyc]

And before our resident lefties chime in "But we can have policies that create jobs!", can they please tell everyone what those policies are/will be?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

Then again, what can one expect from someone who thinks that every laid off/made redundant civil servant is a skilled worker?

Liar. You said this:

Originally Posted by cyc

In these strainten times and with the likelihood of substantial layoffs of more skilled and older workers from the state sector coming, which entails greater competition for jobs,

And I pointed out that these skilled workers won't be competing for minimum wage jobs. Nice try champ.

Originally Posted by cyc

Everything I put there is instantly verifiable as being true.

Lies again. You've provided no evidence that there is a statistically significant correlation between increasing the minimum wage and youth employment.

All your lies, inflammatory name calling and emoticons can't even hide how full shit you really are.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

And before our resident lefties chime in "But we can have policies that create jobs!", can they please tell everyone what those policies are/will be?

Well according to English 170,000 jobs can be created by doing nothing.