The Great Liberatarian Offer

[TrailerParkJawa]

Well, when discussing unemployment, you only discuss the labor force. A person who does not have a job and does not want one is not considered unemployed; he is not a part of the labor force.

Teenagers who do not want a job are not part of the labor force; however, all teenagers who are either employed or actively seeking work are considered part of the labor force. Among this group of teenagers, unemployment is considerably higher than the average, which is usually around five percent.

I understand how it works. Im currently considered unemployed because Im looking and drawing on unemployement insurance.

Are you saying teen unemployement is around 5%? Or natural unemployment is around 5%? I seem to remember that 5% for all of us is what is considered normal.

[Stuart Mackey]

That doesn't help anyone deal with sudden reverses in fortune - for example, I got a concussion last year, and if I had no insurance it would have cost me over $6,000 in hospital fees, x-ray costs, and even the ride in an ambulance (oddly enough, the ambulance ride was supposed to cost over $2,000 alone, despite the fact that I'm about three blocks from the hospital). Few people can handle that sort of financial hit all at once, no matter how frugal they live. Keep in mind that injury or illness not only costs money but also prevents people from working, creating a higher effective cost and making it harder to meet rising medical expenses.

All of this can be prevented with only a simple national minimum standard for health care. Undoubtedly, part of the problem is with the medical industry today, but that can be circumvented.

You should live in NZ, your accident would have been treated for free. But then NZ has no cost heath care regardless of income.

Your fooling yourself if you really think its free.

No im not actually, and our overall tax rate is lower than America's. and we run budget surpulses to boot.

[Joe]

No, I am talking about employers dropping wages, and of course that NZ tried your wee libertarian ideas and they failed. We have a minimum wage here and that is the only thing that makes sure that people can put food on the table in some areas.

Hmm, well, I don't live in New Zealand and I don't know if the laws of demand just don't apply there or something, but cliometric analysis of historical data shows that minimum wages set above the market wage for unskilled labor do cause unemployment. This is an observable phenomenon in America; unemployment is highest among unskilled teenage kids looking for a job, the group most likely to make low wages.

The trick is that a minimum wage must be the minimum to feed and house a person/ family. Employers have not, historicaly, shown themselfs to pay a living wage, therefor our governments have set a minimum wage so that every one has the oppertunity to partisipate in society, or at least house and feed themselfs. This policy also has the benifit of stopping people depending to much on government subsidies.

The minimum wage is not meant to support families. Such a wage would be absolutely disastrous in America; unemployment would skyrocket, and I quite frankly am not prepared to pay six dollars for a hamburger just because of people of who have families they can't afford. And employers will, on average pay a wage that is enough to pay for a family to live on for skilled enough workers. The majority of the people in this country make wages far beyond the minimum; it is only the lowest of earners that are impacted by it.

And again, I know little about New Zealand but I find it highly unlikely that your country has embraced anything resembling libertarian ideology within recent years.

And you would be wrong, fortunatly a stop was put to it befor too much damage was done.[/quote]

I second Duchess's notion. Reference, please.

[Joe]

Well, when discussing unemployment, you only discuss the labor force. A person who does not have a job and does not want one is not considered unemployed; he is not a part of the labor force.

Teenagers who do not want a job are not part of the labor force; however, all teenagers who are either employed or actively seeking work are considered part of the labor force. Among this group of teenagers, unemployment is considerably higher than the average, which is usually around five percent.

I understand how it works. Im currently considered unemployed because Im looking and drawing on unemployement insurance.

Are you saying teen unemployement is around 5%? Or natural unemployment is around 5%? I seem to remember that 5% for all of us is what is considered normal.

Yeah, natural is around 5%. Teen is considerably high, more than 15%, I think.

Sorry if I sounded patronizing earlier.

[Sea Skimmer]

You should live in NZ, your accident would have been treated for free. But then NZ has no cost heath care regardless of income.

Your fooling yourself if you really think its free.

No im not actually, and our overall tax rate is lower than America's. and we run budget surpulses to boot.

You're also incapable of beating off an attack by a single modern frigate or a couple 474 load's of troops. NZ would be fucked if it couldn't rely on others for its defense.

[TrailerParkJawa]

[quote="Durran Korr"

Yeah, natural is around 5%. Teen is considerably high, more than 15%, I think.

Sorry if I sounded patronizing earlier.[/quote]

I thought you meant 5% was natural. Hey dont worry about it, its a good a thread.

Teens have it pretty good where I live. Minimum wage is fairly high, and finding a little bit higher is not all that hard, at least for 18 and 19 year olds.
Problem is the cost of living is so high that even with a degree and a professional job, you cant buy a home unless you have some sort of assistance.

[Stuart Mackey]

The minimum wage is not meant to support families. Such a wage would be absolutely disastrous in America; unemployment would skyrocket, and I quite frankly am not prepared to pay six dollars for a hamburger just because of people of who have families they can't afford. And employers will, on average pay a wage that is enough to pay for a family to live on for skilled enough workers. The majority of the people in this country make wages far beyond the minimum; it is only the lowest of earners that are impacted by it.

Well it is here, because we tend to care about childeren regardless of their parent choics in life. But then NZ is not a nation that has your homelss problem, so why am I not surpised?

And again, I know little about New Zealand but I find it highly unlikely that your country has embraced anything resembling libertarian ideology within recent years.

And you would be wrong, fortunatly a stop was put to it befor too much damage was done.[/quote]

I second Duchess's notion. Reference, please.[/quote]

Employment Realations act 1991.
sundry welfare changes under Jenny Shiply as Social welfare minister
these were under the National government elected in 1990.
*edit*
Also mass privatisation of public assets {not that that was a bad thing in most cases, and done by National and Labour}
Removal of farming/industry tarrifs {labour}

[Stuart Mackey]

Your fooling yourself if you really think its free.

No im not actually, and our overall tax rate is lower than America's. and we run budget surpulses to boot.

You're also incapable of beating off an attack by a single modern frigate or a couple 474 load's of troops. NZ would be fucked if it couldn't rely on others for its defense.

Sureeee. It would take a bit more than that, but then unless you can demonstrate who is going to pose such a dire threat to NZ, I will take it as the strawman it is.

[Joe]

The minimum wage is not meant to support families. Such a wage would be absolutely disastrous in America; unemployment would skyrocket, and I quite frankly am not prepared to pay six dollars for a hamburger just because of people of who have families they can't afford. And employers will, on average pay a wage that is enough to pay for a family to live on for skilled enough workers. The majority of the people in this country make wages far beyond the minimum; it is only the lowest of earners that are impacted by it.

Well it is here, because we tend to care about childeren regardless of their parent choics in life. But then NZ is not a nation that has your homelss problem, so why am I not surpised?

Of course, I say I'm against socialism and uneconomic policies in the name of the children, so it naturally follows that I don't give a damn about children. And the prices of goods is going to increase so much on account of your beloved "living wage" the the purchasing power of the wage will be quite lower. And the homeless problem isn't as severe as one would imagine in America.

And again, I know little about New Zealand but I find it highly unlikely that your country has embraced anything resembling libertarian ideology within recent years.

And you would be wrong, fortunatly a stop was put to it befor too much damage was done.[/quote]

I second Duchess's notion. Reference, please.[/quote]

Employment Realations act 1991.
sundry welfare changes under Jenny Shiply as Social welfare minister
these were under the National government elected in 1990.[/quote]

That means absolutely nothing to me. Elaborate.

[Sea Skimmer]

No im not actually, and our overall tax rate is lower than America's. and we run budget surpulses to boot.

You're also incapable of beating off an attack by a single modern frigate or a couple 474 load's of troops. NZ would be fucked if it couldn't rely on others for its defense.

Sureeee. It would take a bit more than that, but then unless you can demonstrate who is going to pose such a dire threat to NZ, I will take it as the strawman it is.

Nope. The US can't neglect its military the way NZ can. So of course our taxs would be higher. All new Zealand can do in the world is attached media attention with nude protests. The US can decisively defeat almost any nation and destroy the air naval and economic power of the single digit exceptions.

[Stuart Mackey]

The minimum wage is not meant to support families. Such a wage would be absolutely disastrous in America; unemployment would skyrocket, and I quite frankly am not prepared to pay six dollars for a hamburger just because of people of who have families they can't afford. And employers will, on average pay a wage that is enough to pay for a family to live on for skilled enough workers. The majority of the people in this country make wages far beyond the minimum; it is only the lowest of earners that are impacted by it.

Well it is here, because we tend to care about childeren regardless of their parent choics in life. But then NZ is not a nation that has your homelss problem, so why am I not surpised?

Of course, I say I'm against socialism and uneconomic policies in the name of the children, so it naturally follows that I don't give a damn about children. And the prices of goods is going to increase so much on account of your beloved "living wage" the the purchasing power of the wage will be quite lower. And the homeless problem isn't as severe as one would imagine in America.

You also havent experience much of life either, so I am not surprised on this responce. But isnt it funny how we have never had that problem? Our minimum wage has never had that effect. And the fact is that you do have homeless, no one here who wants a roof over their heads lacks for one. Thats not to say things are easy for such people, but we do tend to value people a bit better than you, it would seem.

And again, I know little about New Zealand but I find it highly unlikely that your country has embraced anything resembling libertarian ideology within recent years.

And you would be wrong, fortunatly a stop was put to it befor too much damage was done.

I second Duchess's notion. Reference, please.[/quote]

Employment Realations act 1991.
sundry welfare changes under Jenny Shiply as Social welfare minister
these were under the National government elected in 1990.[/quote]

That means absolutely nothing to me. Elaborate.[/quote]

The employment contracts act {ECA} effectivly abolished any power the Unions had. Our unions were like your wartersiders union that recently went on stike on the West Coast of the USA, In fact it is reasonable to say that our unions could shut down the nation.
The ECA stopped that. Empoyees were put into a strict contratual basis for employement. Unions were only barganing agents, if at all. The principle of freedom of contract was the norm.
Combine this with wefare reductions and other changes that had increased unemployment allowed employers to reduse wages as they saw fit.

[Stuart Mackey]

fucked up post, ignore.

[Stuart Mackey]

Nope. The US can't neglect its military the way NZ can. So of course our taxs would be higher. All new Zealand can do in the world is attached media attention with nude protests. The US can decisively defeat almost any nation and destroy the air naval and economic power of the single digit exceptions.

Ahh the strawman, I thought you knew better, what has this to do with free heath care?.
But as to your man of straw, unless you can see a problem with a nation living within its means, I really cannot see your issue with this.

[Joe]

Then there must have been other factors at work that caused the unemployment. Lowering wages to their market prices just does not create unemployment. It is an economic non-sequitur. That's like saying that lowering the price of a highly-demanded commodity will not increase consumption of that commodity.

[Stuart Mackey]

Then there must have been other factors at work that caused the unemployment. Lowering wages to their market prices just does not create unemployment. It is an economic non-sequitur. That's like saying that lowering the price of a highly-demanded commodity will not increase consumption of that commodity.

Sorry, but your wee theory falls over does it not?. employers forced wages down the moment they had the chance, why? because they could, there was no law that stopped them, other than the minimum wage which is bugger all {I know, ive been there, done that}. And what happens when a large chunk of the employable workforce have less disposable income.....?

[Joe]

Then there must have been other factors at work that caused the unemployment. Lowering wages to their market prices just does not create unemployment. It is an economic non-sequitur. That's like saying that lowering the price of a highly-demanded commodity will not increase consumption of that commodity.

Sorry, but your wee theory falls over does it not?. employers forced wages down the moment they had the chance, why? because they could, there was no law that stopped them, other than the minimum wage which is bugger all {I know, ive been there, done that}. And what happens when a large chunk of the employable workforce have less disposable income.....?

They buy and consume less, assuming prices remain constant. However, the lowered wages will drive down the price of goods, increasing the purchasing power of the real wages. The lowered wages will lead to great quanities of goods, and they will be cheaper.

What you are in fact saying is that increases in the abundance of goods and jobs causes unemployment and underconsumption. Liberal economists offer a similar explanation for America's Great Depression.

[Stuart Mackey]

Then there must have been other factors at work that caused the unemployment. Lowering wages to their market prices just does not create unemployment. It is an economic non-sequitur. That's like saying that lowering the price of a highly-demanded commodity will not increase consumption of that commodity.

Sorry, but your wee theory falls over does it not?. employers forced wages down the moment they had the chance, why? because they could, there was no law that stopped them, other than the minimum wage which is bugger all {I know, ive been there, done that}. And what happens when a large chunk of the employable workforce have less disposable income.....?

They buy and consume less, assuming prices remain constant. However, the lowered wages will drive down the price of goods, increasing the purchasing power of the real wages. The lowered wages will lead to great quanities of goods, and they will be cheaper.

What you are in fact saying is that increases in the abundance of goods and jobs causes unemployment and underconsumption. Liberal economists offer a similar explanation for America's Great Depression.

If you have a large amount of people who are just above the bread line their purchasing power is not going to increace, esp if prices remain more or less constant. this is even more so of the unemployed. Of course you are not factoring in reality, a economy succes is in the turnover of value added products, and not in the mere survival of people. Also how is redusing wages going to allow people buy more? esp when prices of manufacturing do not reduse in the short term.
The experience in NZ is that Lowering wages/rightwing policys has led to greater dependency on the state and a reduction of purchasing power as prices have not decreased. Why should prices decreace if a employers can gain more? The lowering of wages can only benifit a few and not the many.

Also NZ is different from America in that we have a much smaller population and a economy that depends on overseas trade, which can distort a comparison..

[Joe]

Sorry, but your wee theory falls over does it not?. employers forced wages down the moment they had the chance, why? because they could, there was no law that stopped them, other than the minimum wage which is bugger all {I know, ive been there, done that}. And what happens when a large chunk of the employable workforce have less disposable income.....?

They buy and consume less, assuming prices remain constant. However, the lowered wages will drive down the price of goods, increasing the purchasing power of the real wages. The lowered wages will lead to great quanities of goods, and they will be cheaper.

What you are in fact saying is that increases in the abundance of goods and jobs causes unemployment and underconsumption. Liberal economists offer a similar explanation for America's Great Depression.

If you have a large amount of people who are just above the bread line their purchasing power is not going to increace, esp if prices remain more or less constant. this is even more so of the unemployed. Of course you are not factoring in reality, a economy succes is in the turnover of value added products, and not in the mere survival of people. Also how is redusing wages going to allow people buy more? esp when prices of manufacturing do not reduse in the short term.
The experience in NZ is that Lowering wages/rightwing policys has led to greater dependency on the state and a reduction of purchasing power as prices have not decreased. Why should prices decreace if a employers can gain more? The lowering of wages can only benifit a few and not the many.

Also NZ is different from America in that we have a much smaller population and a economy that depends on overseas trade, which can distort a comparison..

But prices DO decrease when wages are allowed decrease, just as prices of goods increase when wages are forced upward. The cost of manufacturing and selling goods will decrease inevitably as the price of labor decreases, and the added productivity that will come from being able to employ more workers will drive the cost of the goods down even further. Like I said earlier, the lowering of the minimum wage to the market wage is likely not going to affect the income of anyone other than unskilled laborers; employers will still have to provide higher, more competitive wages to skilled laborers in order to attract them. For the income-earners who are NOT affected by the minimum wage, purchasing power will even more than it will for the lower earners. As for the lower earners, a decrease in nominal wages is not the same thing as a decrease in real wages. Their purchasing power may not be significantly impacted, and if it is, then so be it; maintaining a natural rate of unemployment among unskilled workers than is more important than benefitting the unskilled workers able to find a job at the expense of all other unskilled workers.

If things are somehow different in New Zealand, then it is the exception that proves the rule. Historical data and everything we know about economics holds that minimum wage causes increased unemployment, and raises the cost of goods.

[Stuart Mackey]

They buy and consume less, assuming prices remain constant. However, the lowered wages will drive down the price of goods, increasing the purchasing power of the real wages. The lowered wages will lead to great quanities of goods, and they will be cheaper.

What you are in fact saying is that increases in the abundance of goods and jobs causes unemployment and underconsumption. Liberal economists offer a similar explanation for America's Great Depression.

If you have a large amount of people who are just above the bread line their purchasing power is not going to increace, esp if prices remain more or less constant. this is even more so of the unemployed. Of course you are not factoring in reality, a economy succes is in the turnover of value added products, and not in the mere survival of people. Also how is redusing wages going to allow people buy more? esp when prices of manufacturing do not reduse in the short term.
The experience in NZ is that Lowering wages/rightwing policys has led to greater dependency on the state and a reduction of purchasing power as prices have not decreased. Why should prices decreace if a employers can gain more? The lowering of wages can only benifit a few and not the many.

Also NZ is different from America in that we have a much smaller population and a economy that depends on overseas trade, which can distort a comparison..

But prices DO decrease when wages are allowed decrease, just as prices of goods increase when wages are forced upward. The cost of manufacturing and selling goods will decrease inevitably as the price of labor decreases, and the added productivity that will come from being able to employ more workers will drive the cost of the goods down even further. Like I said earlier, the lowering of the minimum wage to the market wage is likely not going to affect the income of anyone other than unskilled laborers; employers will still have to provide higher, more competitive wages to skilled laborers in order to attract them. For the income-earners who are NOT affected by the minimum wage, purchasing power will even more than it will for the lower earners. As for the lower earners, a decrease in nominal wages is not the same thing as a decrease in real wages. Their purchasing power may not be significantly impacted, and if it is, then so be it; maintaining a natural rate of unemployment among unskilled workers than is more important than benefitting the unskilled workers able to find a job at the expense of all other unskilled workers.

If things are somehow different in New Zealand, then it is the exception that proves the rule. Historical data and everything we know about economics holds that minimum wage causes increased unemployment, and raises the cost of goods.

I am sorry, but that is not how it works out. A minimum wage ensure that people will survive in employment, and if you are looking to American example only I would suggest you look further. And quite franakly to allow poeple to slip into povery with a 'so be it' is babaric. Prices dont decreace with wages why should they?, there is no reason for employers to reduse prices. Those people who are at minimum wage, and lets be clear about it, minimum wage is the minimum to pay the bills nothing more, suffer as a result. If things are different in NZ, and they are, with budget surpluses, and a lower unemployment rate than America, perhaps it is your wee theory that is wrong?NZ has made a sucsess of the minimum wage theory.
Edit* as a an aside to the main argument, NZ is also a nation where primary and secondary education is free, and emergency heath care is free and all treatment is on a basis of need not ability to pay {not including private hospitals} and a quality of life that puts most nations to shame. I would also point out that we do not have farming tarrifs and few industry tarriffs {soon to end} we also have lower taxes than America. From our perspective America does not have a patch on this nation.

[Joe]

If you have a large amount of people who are just above the bread line their purchasing power is not going to increace, esp if prices remain more or less constant. this is even more so of the unemployed. Of course you are not factoring in reality, a economy succes is in the turnover of value added products, and not in the mere survival of people. Also how is redusing wages going to allow people buy more? esp when prices of manufacturing do not reduse in the short term.
The experience in NZ is that Lowering wages/rightwing policys has led to greater dependency on the state and a reduction of purchasing power as prices have not decreased. Why should prices decreace if a employers can gain more? The lowering of wages can only benifit a few and not the many.

Also NZ is different from America in that we have a much smaller population and a economy that depends on overseas trade, which can distort a comparison..

But prices DO decrease when wages are allowed decrease, just as prices of goods increase when wages are forced upward. The cost of manufacturing and selling goods will decrease inevitably as the price of labor decreases, and the added productivity that will come from being able to employ more workers will drive the cost of the goods down even further. Like I said earlier, the lowering of the minimum wage to the market wage is likely not going to affect the income of anyone other than unskilled laborers; employers will still have to provide higher, more competitive wages to skilled laborers in order to attract them. For the income-earners who are NOT affected by the minimum wage, purchasing power will even more than it will for the lower earners. As for the lower earners, a decrease in nominal wages is not the same thing as a decrease in real wages. Their purchasing power may not be significantly impacted, and if it is, then so be it; maintaining a natural rate of unemployment among unskilled workers than is more important than benefitting the unskilled workers able to find a job at the expense of all other unskilled workers.

If things are somehow different in New Zealand, then it is the exception that proves the rule. Historical data and everything we know about economics holds that minimum wage causes increased unemployment, and raises the cost of goods.

I am sorry, but that is not how it works out. A minimum wage ensure that people will survive in employment, and if you are looking to American example only I would suggest you look further. And quite franakly to allow poeple to slip into povery with a 'so be it' is babaric. Prices dont decreace with wages why should they?, there is no reason for employers to reduse prices. Those people who are at minimum wage, and lets be clear about it, minimum wage is the minimum to pay the bills nothing more, suffer as a result. If things are different in NZ, and they are, with budget surpluses, and a lower unemployment rate than America, perhaps it is your wee theory that is wrong?NZ has made a sucsess of the minimum wage theory.

Well, the U.S. unemployment rate rarely drops below 5 percent, which can be attributed to structural and frictional unemployment, which is inevitable.

I don't see why my plan to "allow people to slip into poverty" is so awful; what is preferable to you, 80% percent of the workers employed, earning a slightly higher wage while the other 20% get screwed, or 100% of the workers employed, earning the market wage?

And I've done my homework; if my research is correct, in the early 1990's your unemployment levels peaked around 11 percent, however, had dropped to six percent by 1996. According to your information, the growth of the minimum wage was slowed down during the early 90's, when unemployment reached its peak. It is only after the growth of your minimum wage was limited that unemployment began to fall in New Zealand.

And WHY, WHY, WHY will firms NOT decrease the prices of their goods when they are able to in order to compete? People will buy goods that are priced more cheaply than others! What part of this do you not understand? Why wouldn't producers attempt to lower the prices of their goods? By your logic, prices (in real terms) should have never declined at any point in history, since employers have no reason to let them do so, apparently.

What do budget surpluses matter here? We're not talking about budget, we're talking about unemployment. Our budget deficits can be linked to our military spending, as Sea Skimmer pointed out.

New Zealand is a shining example of deregulation and privatization, just like Chile. In the 80's its economy was overregulated and overprotected, but thanks to liberal policies its economy has done a fine job of reviving itself.

[Joe]

Oh, and one more thing; your minimum wage is lower than ours.

http://www.sharechat.co.nz/news/scnews/ ... p/dda8ee0f

For adults, the minimum wage rate is $8.00 New Zealand dollars an hour. This equals 4.38159 USD.

For teens, the minimum wage rate is $6.40 New Zealand dollars an hour. This equals 3.50527 USD, far below our minimum wage rate, which is $5.15 dollars an hour.

Shame, you had me all worried about how the laws of demand apparently didn't apply in New Zealand, all while New Zealand has what appears to be a minimum wage far closer to the equilibirum wage than the American minimum wage is.

[Stuart Mackey]

Well, the U.S. unemployment rate rarely drops below 5 percent, which can be attributed to structural and frictional unemployment, which is inevitable.

I don't see why my plan to "allow people to slip into poverty" is so awful; what is preferable to you, 80% percent of the workers employed, earning a slightly higher wage while the other 20% get screwed, or 100% of the workers employed, earning the market wage?

Poverty is not something that is acceptable in New Zealand, why it would be acceptable to you is unfathomable, I put it down to lack of experience. To say that 100% earning the market wage? you jest, yes? this has never been the case nor will it.

And I've done my homework; if my research is correct, in the early 1990's your unemployment levels peaked around 11 percent, however, had dropped to six percent by 1996. According to your information, the growth of the minimum wage was slowed down during the early 90's, when unemployment reached its peak. It is only after the growth of your minimum wage was limited that unemployment began to fall in New Zealand.

I think you have misunderstood me here. Minimum wage is not something that that grows or declines, it is a statutory minimum wage that any employer must pay his/her employees and it is considered the minimum nessary to live on. As such I fail to see how you can link it to NZ's employment rates. We have it so that people dont starve. If you feel that people working at below subsistance wages is acceptable, then I must urge you reconsider your morals.

And WHY, WHY, WHY will firms NOT decrease the prices of their goods when they are able to in order to compete? People will buy goods that are priced more cheaply than others! What part of this do you not understand? Why wouldn't producers attempt to lower the prices of their goods? By your logic, prices (in real terms) should have never declined at any point in history, since employers have no reason to let them do so, apparently.

They wont reduse their prices because their costs are not going to change so much as to cover shortfalls in income, if people do not spend then a economy will not grow, rdusing wages and or staff will not, cannot, cover this alone.
A loaf of bread costs so much to make and there are unalterable costs in this, if people dont have the money to buy it, you and your competitors dont make any money on money people have not spent in your store,, get it? No money, no bread.
Needless to say their are a considerable number of factors that influnece this, inflation, war, rumours of war, cost of petrol/diesel etc, but for those people who are on minimum wage a eduction in wage can and will prohibite the purchace of that loaf of bread. These people are not in a position to influence price as they are in a minority most of the time, albeit a largish one.

What do budget surpluses matter here? We're not talking about budget, we're talking about unemployment. Our budget deficits can be linked to our military spending, as Sea Skimmer pointed out.

*groan*A budget surplus alows you to pay of the principle of a debt and thus reduse the expence of servicing that debt. if you pay of that debt you are in a position to reduse tax and increace the disposible income of the economy, therefor employment should go up. Naturally if employment goes up the tax base widens etc etc. Budget surplusses have everything to do with it.
Sea Skimmers remark was a strawman, and a false one at that, that had nothing to do with the argument at hand, you should be able to see this.

"You're also incapable of beating off an attack by a single modern frigate or a couple 474 load's of troops. NZ would be fucked if it couldn't rely on others for its defense. "

New Zealand is a shining example of deregulation and privatization, just like Chile. In the 80's its economy was overregulated and overprotected, but thanks to liberal policies its economy has done a fine job of reviving itself.

NZ is also a shining example of a welfare state that works to a reasonably well. We have free heath care to a large degree, University education that is about 75%stae funded with free primary and secondary education, universal welfare for the unemployed, a minimum wage and we run budget surpluses and we are a democracy.I would also point out that deregulation started in 1984, befor that we were more regulated than Bulgaria.

[Stuart Mackey]

Oh, and one more thing; your minimum wage is lower than ours.

http://www.sharechat.co.nz/news/scnews/ ... p/dda8ee0f

For adults, the minimum wage rate is $8.00 New Zealand dollars an hour. This equals 4.38159 USD.

For teens, the minimum wage rate is $6.40 New Zealand dollars an hour. This equals 3.50527 USD, far below our minimum wage rate, which is $5.15 dollars an hour.

Shame, you had me all worried about how the laws of demand apparently didn't apply in New Zealand, all while New Zealand has what appears to be a minimum wage far closer to the equilibirum wage than the American minimum wage is.

Lol, that is misleading, You also have a higher cost of living. you should know better

[Joe]

Well, the U.S. unemployment rate rarely drops below 5 percent, which can be attributed to structural and frictional unemployment, which is inevitable.

I don't see why my plan to "allow people to slip into poverty" is so awful; what is preferable to you, 80% percent of the workers employed, earning a slightly higher wage while the other 20% get screwed, or 100% of the workers employed, earning the market wage?

Poverty is not something that is acceptable in New Zealand, why it would be acceptable to you is unfathomable, I put it down to lack of experience. To say that 100% earning the market wage? you jest, yes? this has never been the case nor will it.

OK, fine. 95% percent, allowing for the natural rate of unemployment.

And I've done my homework; if my research is correct, in the early 1990's your unemployment levels peaked around 11 percent, however, had dropped to six percent by 1996. According to your information, the growth of the minimum wage was slowed down during the early 90's, when unemployment reached its peak. It is only after the growth of your minimum wage was limited that unemployment began to fall in New Zealand.

I think you have misunderstood me here. Minimum wage is not something that that grows or declines, it is a statutory minimum wage that any employer must pay his/her employees and it is considered the minimum nessary to live on. As such I fail to see how you can link it to NZ's employment rates. We have it so that people dont starve. If you feel that people working at below subsistance wages is acceptable, then I must urge you reconsider your morals.

Uh, no speedy, for the minimum wage rate to be effective theoretically, it must keep up with inflation. Your minimum wage is not the same as it was 10 years ago, obviously, due to inflation. The minimum wage continued to grow beyond the rate of inflation until the early 90's, when its growth began to be limited drastically.

And a link between minimum wage and unemployment? OK. There is a demand for labor and there is a supply for it. Employers (the demand side), ideally are going to want to pay as little as they can to as much workers as possible, whereas laborers (the supply side) are going to want to work for the highest wages they can in the greatest numbers they can. Obviously neither the employer nor the employee can have his way, so the market will eventually level off to a point where the needs of the employer and the employee are in balance. This is called the equilibrium point. What a minimum wage does is (usually, but not always) is set the wage above the equilibrium point, causing the quantity demanded of workers to decrease and the quantity supplied of workers to increase. There are going to be even more people looking for jobs, but there are going to be less jobs available on account of this wage hike. There are NOT going to be enough jobs available.

And WHY, WHY, WHY will firms NOT decrease the prices of their goods when they are able to in order to compete? People will buy goods that are priced more cheaply than others! What part of this do you not understand? Why wouldn't producers attempt to lower the prices of their goods? By your logic, prices (in real terms) should have never declined at any point in history, since employers have no reason to let them do so, apparently.

They wont reduse their prices because their costs are not going to change so much as to cover shortfalls in income, if people do not spend then a economy will not grow, rdusing wages and or staff will not, cannot, cover this alone.
A loaf of bread costs so much to make and there are unalterable costs in this, if people dont have the money to buy it, you and your competitors dont make any money on money people have not spent in your store,, get it? No money, no bread.
Needless to say their are a considerable number of factors that influnece this, inflation, war, rumours of war, cost of petrol/diesel etc, but for those people who are on minimum wage a eduction in wage can and will prohibite the purchace of that loaf of bread. These people are not in a position to influence price as they are in a minority most of the time, albeit a largish one.

Wall of Ignorance. I give up.

What do budget surpluses matter here? We're not talking about budget, we're talking about unemployment. Our budget deficits can be linked to our military spending, as Sea Skimmer pointed out.

*groan*A budget surplus alows you to pay of the principle of a debt and thus reduse the expence of servicing that debt. if you pay of that debt you are in a position to reduse tax and increace the disposible income of the economy, therefor employment should go up. Naturally if employment goes up the tax base widens etc etc. Budget surplusses have everything to do with it.
Sea Skimmers remark was a strawman, and a false one at that, that had nothing to do with the argument at hand, you should be able to see this.

"You're also incapable of beating off an attack by a single modern frigate or a couple 474 load's of troops. NZ would be fucked if it couldn't rely on others for its defense. "

Again, New Zealand is very different from the United States. We can't just run budget surpluses like that, we can't just free-ride of the defense of other countries like you can. Your budget surpluses would disappear very quickly if you were no longer able to free-ride off of other nations.

New Zealand is a shining example of deregulation and privatization, just like Chile. In the 80's its economy was overregulated and overprotected, but thanks to liberal policies its economy has done a fine job of reviving itself.

NZ is also a shining example of a welfare state that works to a reasonably well. We have free heath care to a large degree, University education that is about 75%stae funded with free primary and secondary education, universal welfare for the unemployed, a minimum wage and we run budget surpluses and we are a democracy.I would also point out that deregulation started in 1984, befor that we were more regulated than Bulgaria.[/quote]

Yeah, and you don't go from quasi-Marxist hellhole to free market paradise overnight. Reform takes time and is often painful.

And as Sea Skimmer said earlier, you're just convincing yourself that it is free. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

It should also be noted that as far as recent years are concerned, your claim that unemployment rates in New Zealand have been consistently lower than that of the U.S. is simply not true.

Unemployment in New Zealand:



Unemployment in the U.S.:

[Stuart Mackey]

Well, the U.S. unemployment rate rarely drops below 5 percent, which can be attributed to structural and frictional unemployment, which is inevitable.

I don't see why my plan to "allow people to slip into poverty" is so awful; what is preferable to you, 80% percent of the workers employed, earning a slightly higher wage while the other 20% get screwed, or 100% of the workers employed, earning the market wage?

Poverty is not something that is acceptable in New Zealand, why it would be acceptable to you is unfathomable, I put it down to lack of experience. To say that 100% earning the market wage? you jest, yes? this has never been the case nor will it.

OK, fine. 95% percent, allowing for the natural rate of unemployment.

Wage rates, poverty can and do vary, you just cannot pick a number and say this is how its going to be, the world does not work like that.

And I've done my homework; if my research is correct, in the early 1990's your unemployment levels peaked around 11 percent, however, had dropped to six percent by 1996. According to your information, the growth of the minimum wage was slowed down during the early 90's, when unemployment reached its peak. It is only after the growth of your minimum wage was limited that unemployment began to fall in New Zealand.

I think you have misunderstood me here. Minimum wage is not something that that grows or declines, it is a statutory minimum wage that any employer must pay his/her employees and it is considered the minimum nessary to live on. As such I fail to see how you can link it to NZ's employment rates. We have it so that people dont starve. If you feel that people working at below subsistance wages is acceptable, then I must urge you reconsider your morals.

Uh, no speedy, for the minimum wage rate to be effective theoretically, it must keep up with inflation. Your minimum wage is not the same as it was 10 years ago, obviously, due to inflation. The minimum wage continued to grow beyond the rate of inflation until the early 90's, when its growth began to be limited drastically.

Ahh I see what you mean, never mind.

And a link between minimum wage and unemployment? OK. There is a demand for labor and there is a supply for it. Employers (the demand side), ideally are going to want to pay as little as they can to as much workers as possible, whereas laborers (the supply side) are going to want to work for the highest wages they can in the greatest numbers they can. Obviously neither the employer nor the employee can have his way, so the market will eventually level off to a point where the needs of the employer and the employee are in balance. This is called the equilibrium point. What a minimum wage does is (usually, but not always) is set the wage above the equilibrium point, causing the quantity demanded of workers to decrease and the quantity supplied of workers to increase. There are going to be even more people looking for jobs, but there are going to be less jobs available on account of this wage hike. There are NOT going to be enough jobs available.

Thats a nice theory, but it does not work like that, full employment is a fiction, which is why NZ has had a minimum wage and a state unemployment benifit, because the equlibrium you postulate does not work out in fact.

And WHY, WHY, WHY will firms NOT decrease the prices of their goods when they are able to in order to compete? People will buy goods that are priced more cheaply than others! What part of this do you not understand? Why wouldn't producers attempt to lower the prices of their goods? By your logic, prices (in real terms) should have never declined at any point in history, since employers have no reason to let them do so, apparently.

They wont reduse their prices because their costs are not going to change so much as to cover shortfalls in income, if people do not spend then a economy will not grow, rdusing wages and or staff will not, cannot, cover this alone.
A loaf of bread costs so much to make and there are unalterable costs in this, if people dont have the money to buy it, you and your competitors dont make any money on money people have not spent in your store,, get it? No money, no bread.
Needless to say their are a considerable number of factors that influnece this, inflation, war, rumours of war, cost of petrol/diesel etc, but for those people who are on minimum wage a eduction in wage can and will prohibite the purchace of that loaf of bread. These people are not in a position to influence price as they are in a minority most of the time, albeit a largish one.

Wall of Ignorance. I give up.

Ok, what dont you get about this? you do realise that in the price of a loaf of bread thre is the cost of electricity, wages, the ingreadients, transportation, storage, retail mark ups, rent, ROI. If a person is on a low, or fixed wage, they cannot influence price and a seller will not compete for their custom as they dont have the money to buy it in the first place! Which is why NZ has had minimum wage so that people can buy brad and other esential so they dont fucking starve!.

What do budget surpluses matter here? We're not talking about budget, we're talking about unemployment. Our budget deficits can be linked to our military spending, as Sea Skimmer pointed out.

*groan*A budget surplus alows you to pay of the principle of a debt and thus reduse the expence of servicing that debt. if you pay of that debt you are in a position to reduse tax and increace the disposible income of the economy, therefor employment should go up. Naturally if employment goes up the tax base widens etc etc. Budget surplusses have everything to do with it.
Sea Skimmers remark was a strawman, and a false one at that, that had nothing to do with the argument at hand, you should be able to see this.

"You're also incapable of beating off an attack by a single modern frigate or a couple 474 load's of troops. NZ would be fucked if it couldn't rely on others for its defense. "

Again, New Zealand is very different from the United States. We can't just run budget surpluses like that, we can't just free-ride of the defense of other countries like you can. Your budget surpluses would disappear very quickly if you were no longer able to free-ride off of other nations.

Free ride eh? show me where and how. This nation lives within its means, and if you take a look at a map NZ {no we are not in Europe} has no strategic threat to its territory or independence. We do not rely on others for our defence so unless you show how our defence forces, politicans or a look at a map, can be wrong show the evidence.
If we wish to increase the size and capability of our forces then we must increase the size of our economy and also the amount of government income. Part of the way to do that is to pay off debt, which requires a budget surplus.

New Zealand is a shining example of deregulation and privatization, just like Chile. In the 80's its economy was overregulated and overprotected, but thanks to liberal policies its economy has done a fine job of reviving itself.

NZ is also a shining example of a welfare state that works to a reasonably well. We have free heath care to a large degree, University education that is about 75%stae funded with free primary and secondary education, universal welfare for the unemployed, a minimum wage and we run budget surpluses and we are a democracy.I would also point out that deregulation started in 1984, befor that we were more regulated than Bulgaria.[/quote]

Yeah, and you don't go from quasi-Marxist hellhole to free market paradise overnight. Reform takes time and is often painful.

And as Sea Skimmer said earlier, you're just convincing yourself that it is free. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
[/quote]

In the literal sence yes, of course, you pay via tax. However if I break a leg it cost me nothing to have it fixed, regardless of income. Our top tax rate is 40%, which may or may not go down depending on the next few years economic results, and we run budget surpluses and still have a quality of life that is second to none. Hadly some thing to sneeze at.

It should also be noted that as far as recent years are concerned, your claim that unemployment rates in New Zealand have been consistently lower than that of the U.S. is simply not true.

Unemployment in New Zealand:



Unemployment in the U.S.:

You US graph didnt show, but I looked it up, point conceeded to adegree but I never said consistantly or from what date.[/u][/i]