Youth unemployment

[TheEnd]

This new 'casual' employment is going on in the U.S bigtime and it will soon be the new normal over here aswell.

 

[bordsilver]

As has been mentioned already the workforce is moving to a 'casual' workforce and as long as employers can get away with these new laws workers will suffer.

What do you mean "get away with"? Employers are not the government or people's mother, and there is no reason that someone has to give a job to another person.

+1 And there's no reason to accept the conditions either. That someone else may be willing to and therefore erode your bargaining power is a pain but isn't any different to you eroding the employers bargaining power when no other employees exist with your particular skills.

 

[registered nutcase]

As has been mentioned already the workforce is moving to a 'casual' workforce and as long as employers can get away with these new laws workers will suffer.

What do you mean "get away with"? Employers are not the government or people's mother, and there is no reason that someone has to give a job to another person.

I agree but Business should have the responsibility to guide employees to the particular needs of the business as each business is different, not that it happens as much anymore with a causal workforce.

 

[Shaddam IV]

As has been mentioned already the workforce is moving to a 'casual' workforce and as long as employers can get away with these new laws workers will suffer.

What do you mean "get away with"? Employers are not the government or people's mother, and there is no reason that someone has to give a job to another person.

I agree but Business should have the responsibility to guide employees to the particular needs of the business as each business is different, not that it happens as much anymore with a causal workforce.

That 's why FWA is such a liability to the country. The more the government (read unions that control FWA) bring in legislation to force business owners into onerous obligations around employing people the more business owners will act to protect themselves and simply avoid employing people and to offshore the work. They don't want to do it but now that employing someone for more than 12 months is equivalent to a one sided marriage contract business owners simply will not go there. As I said earlier, Australians that choose to run their own businesses are tired of being treated like surrogate mothers with a gun to their head.

 

[Big A.D.]

As has been mentioned already the workforce is moving to a 'casual' workforce and as long as employers can get away with these new laws workers will suffer.

What do you mean "get away with"? Employers are not the government or people's mother, and there is no reason that someone has to give a job to another person.

+1 And there's no reason to accept the conditions either. That someone else may be willing to and therefore erode your bargaining power is a pain but isn't any different to you eroding the employers bargaining power when no other employees exist with your particular skills.

That's half of it, but it assumes employees have as much choice in choosing a job as employers do in offering one.

Putting a 6 month waiting period on Newstart for people under 30 before payments can begin means that a lot of young people (and even a fair number of people who aren't that young) have severely reduced options.

All that's going to do is create a massive amount of employee churn.

Ultimately, it could even make young people less employable. Why would you give a job to anyone who only wants to work for you fractionally more than they want to starve on the street? Is that really the basis of a good working relationship?

Anyone asking the standard interview question "Why do you want to work here?" is going to start hearing "Because I need to buy food" a lot more often if the candidate is honest and "Because you're so amazingly awesome" if they're not. Just what every prospective employer needs: loads of additional job applicants who's first words are complete bullshit.

The whole point of having universal unemployment benefits was that people would have enough money not to starve but not enough to be comfortable and that would give them enough time to find suitable, long term employment. The fact that some people can make that amount of money stretch far enough to make living on the dole a lifestyle choice is both amazing and unfortunate, but the alternative to having the government system permanently carry some dead weight is that the private sector will become inefficient in other ways instead: instead of being on the dole for a few weeks or months while looking for something better, young people will be "working" in private businesses for a few weeks or months while looking for something better. Then they'll up and leave, rinse and repeat.

 

[Rinchin]

Want to fix unemployment then label the welfare system what it is communism. Stop paying dole + rent assistance, put em all in cheap units outside city limits and provide land to grow veges etc. Spend only on housing and necessities but give them no cash. You want to smoke - grow tobacco. Want to drink brew your own. Provide input resources that allow a similar lifestyle that low income workers get provided they are prepared to put in the time and effort.

You can then remove minimum wages and requirements to look for work. Allow people the choice between working or looking after themselves (all be it subsidised but far cheaper that it currently costs) then businesses can fairly compete with LIFE for peoples time.

I can accept taxes helping people provide for themselves far easier than simply funding someone participating in the economy in a one directional manner.

The economic decision unemployed currently face is stacked. If you can get $500 /week dole + another $100 in rent subsidy. Or work 80 hours at $20 = $1600 - 1/3 tax takes you down to $1130. Thus youre actually only $530 up for those 80 hours or <$7/hr.

Now thats De motivational especially if you're on less or not getting 80 hours.

Far better to offer people the choice of participating in the economy not depending on the value they see in the labor market. Far better than dictating a minimum and bullying people to work for it. Business would pay what labor is worth if they want to operate - and in turn get workers productive and willing to be there.

 

[bordsilver]

@Big A.D. - but, but you guys convinced me that there's no barriers to them starting up their own business or getting off their butt and being employed by people who do take risks.

 

[Big A.D.]

The economic decision unemployed currently face is stacked. If you can get $500 /week dole + another $100 in rent subsidy. Or work 80 hours at $20 = $1600 - 1/3 tax takes you down to $1130. Thus youre actually only $530 up for those 80 hours or <$7/hr.

If you could get that rate on the dole, sure that'd stuff things, but you can't.

Newstart is $255.25 per week.

Rent Assistance is $63.20 per week.

Young people will soon be getting bumped down to Youth Allowance of $207.20 (because...you know, stuff).

Someone working 80 hours per week at $20 per hour would have an after tax income of $1207.79 per week.

So no, you math is way off and someone who goes to work is a little under a thousand bucks a week better off than an unemployed young person.

 

[Big A.D.]

@Big A.D. - but, but you guys convinced me that there's no barriers to them starting up their own business or getting off their butt and being employed by people who do take risks.

No, you said there was too much government red tape preventing people starting businesses.

I provided information showing that this is not true.

There are plenty of things other than red tape that can make starting a business difficult. I've done it a number of times myself and I don't want thirty people knocking on my door each week asking for a job because they need money to eat today rather than because they actually want to do the work.

The churn rate wouldn't have to be very high at all for it to be ultimately better for me to run my businesses as normal and pay the tax to support their welfare payments compared to training a string of people who quit as soon as they find a job they like and are suitable for.

(Yes, I've already done the math because I need to know what my current staff turnover rate is.)

 

[mmm....shiney!]

The economic decision unemployed currently face is stacked. If you can get $500 /week dole + another $100 in rent subsidy. Or work 80 hours at $20 = $1600 - 1/3 tax takes you down to $1130. Thus youre actually only $530 up for those 80 hours or <$7/hr.

If you could get that rate on the dole, sure that'd stuff things, but you can't.

Newstart is $255.25 per week.

Rent Assistance is $63.20 per week.

Young people will soon be getting bumped down to Youth Allowance of $207.20 (because...you know, stuff).

Someone working 80 hours per week at $20 per hour would have an after tax income of $1207.79 per week.

So no, you math is way off and someone who goes to work is a little under a thousand bucks a week better off than an unemployed young person.

Using your figures, someone who doesn't go to work is $16559.40 a year better off in advance of someone who does go to work. Someone working 38 hours per week on the minimum wage (about $32000 per year) has to work 6 months in the first year before they are even on par with the unemployed!!!


It's called "Newstart" because it's supposed to be a "start" not an ongoing payment, it's called "Newstart" because it's supposed to be a "new" form of financial support for those recently unemployed. If it was meant to support the unemployable for the rest of their lives then we'd call it something else, probably along the lines of the parliamentary pension scheme.

Every unemployed person removes over $16000 of non-productive effort from the economy. Luckily, most unemployed return a good part of it in the form of takeaway food, grog and ciggies. If only the government would have the balls to legalise marijuana, then you'd be safe to say you get back a 100% return.

The situation won't change as long as the government forcibly removes productive effort from one part of society and gives it freely to another. It's not as simple as removing government welfare, there are a host of other reforms that need to be taken (but they involve the eradication of The State), but realistically, the situation will not change until drastic action is taken. And yes, it will involve hardship.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

The economic decision unemployed currently face is stacked. If you can get $500 /week dole + another $100 in rent subsidy. Or work 80 hours at $20 = $1600 - 1/3 tax takes you down to $1130. Thus youre actually only $530 up for those 80 hours or <$7/hr.

If you could get that rate on the dole, sure that'd stuff things, but you can't.

Newstart is $255.25 per week.

Rent Assistance is $63.20 per week.

Young people will soon be getting bumped down to Youth Allowance of $207.20 (because...you know, stuff).

Someone working 80 hours per week at $20 per hour would have an after tax income of $1207.79 per week.

So no, you math is way off and someone who goes to work is a little under a thousand bucks a week better off than an unemployed young person.

Using your figures, someone who doesn't go to work is $16559.40 a year better off in advance of someone who does go to work. Someone working 38 hours per week on the minimum wage (about $32000 per year) has to work 6 months in the first year before they are even on par with the unemployed!!!


It's called "Newstart" because it's supposed to be a "start" not an ongoing payment, it's called "Newstart" because it's supposed to be a "new" form of financial support for those recently unemployed. If it was meant to support the unemployable for the rest of their lives then we'd call it something else, probably along the lines of the parliamentary pension scheme.

Every unemployed person removes over $16000 of non-productive effort from the economy. Luckily, most unemployed return a good part of it in the form of takeaway food, grog and ciggies. If only the government would have the balls to legalise marijuana, then you'd be safe to say you get back a 100% return.

The situation won't change as long as the government forcibly removes productive effort from one part of society and gives it freely to another. It's not as simple as removing government welfare, there are a host of other reforms that need to be taken (but they involve the eradication of The State), but realistically, the situation will not change until drastic action is taken. And yes, it will involve hardship.

^^ or in other words, there is no logical reason to oppose the halving of the minimum wage to $8.18/hr. It would raise employment levels and reduce the reliance on social welfare. And wouldn't make a scrap of difference to the 700,000 on a Newstart allowance.

Not that i favour legislating minimum wages, I present it as an argument only.

Edited because the thread changed pages.

 

[bordsilver]

No, you said there was too much government red tape preventing people starting businesses.

Cut the oppressive restrictions and costs on creating new businesses and hiring and firing people and the Australian government expenditure could be halved in 12 months with a stronger more sustainable economy arising within two years.

 

[Rinchin]

The economic decision unemployed currently face is stacked. If you can get $500 /week dole + another $100 in rent subsidy. Or work 80 hours at $20 = $1600 - 1/3 tax takes you down to $1130. Thus youre actually only $530 up for those 80 hours or <$7/hr.

If you could get that rate on the dole, sure that'd stuff things, but you can't.

Newstart is $255.25 per week.

Rent Assistance is $63.20 per week.

Young people will soon be getting bumped down to Youth Allowance of $207.20 (because...you know, stuff).

Someone working 80 hours per week at $20 per hour would have an after tax income of $1207.79 per week.

So no, you math is way off and someone who goes to work is a little under a thousand bucks a week better off than an unemployed young person.

Oops my bad. I ment 500/fortnight. Taken from an earlier post in this thread hence I compared it to 80 hrs. Where my tax estimate was $77 short partly compensated by my underestimating dole and rent assistance. 100/fn vs 63.20/wk and 500 vs 510 Making my overall calculation about 50 bucks out. Not bad I reckon for a kiwi living in nz with a belly full of booze.

To add the figures are less motivating here. When I left full time work and accepted govt assistance I effectively bought back my time for less than $4/hr. Those hours I now spend developing skills to look after myself should govt fail and helping others. Mind blowing the vield provided from helping a fellow man.... sure it's not paid there then or often not even directly by who you helped you.

My point stands. you are only working for the difference between what you actually get paid and your potential income from doing nothing. And all the dollars given out for free compete at the same value as ones people work hard for when it comes time to spend them.

Sure there needs to be some manner of looking after those less fortunate (of course I'd prefer by voluntary charity) but lets not pretend recycling tax money through dole payments destined to partially return in gst and excise tax has any genuine value to an economy. Especially when so much is lost/wasted at every beurocratic step.

Give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish is not just about being better for the man. Its also a hell of a lot better for those fitting the bill when your man has his hand out for a fish every week.

 

[renovator]

So the short answer is NO ....tnx

When you actually start a full time business im sure you will be better qualified to address the problems with starting , maintaining & hiring /firing employees in that business.

It really isnt as difficult as you think . The difficult part is turning a fair profit to make it all worthwhile.

Short answer is yes but only a few times (and not for the entire business) and it too often it has ended up in killing my profit and consequently my income so I have become very reluctant to do it.

I bow to your far greater experience* about the apparent ease of hiring/firing and turning a profit** and will therefore will stop promoting labour market reform before welfare cuts. The little bastards can suck it up and get into work.

* I mean this honestly and am not taking the piss.

** I must admit however, that I am continually amazed at your acknowledgement of costs and relative worth of employees and yet seem to say that there aren't many unnecessary costs of employing people in Australia that affect profitability to the point that you don't hire as many people.

Well bordie you edited/deleted your previous post pretty quick to reflect your new reply ...anyway I dont expect anyone to bow to me on any level & im in a country atm where its common to worship the foreigners im continually telling them not to call me sir . Its more about commonsense.
i only wanted to know if you had any experience starting & running your own business because youve bleated a few times about the barriers & now i know youve never actually been through the experience only hiring casual for obviously a very small timeframe that by your own words "affected your profitability "( in your deleted post )to a point where it wasnt worthwhile .is hardly enough experience in the business to be telling everyone thats theres too many barriers .

Secondly Im not sure why your amazed that i acknowledge theres costs . Ive said before theres costs but not enough to stop anyone from starting a venture . Your reference to not hiring as many people ....well welcome to the 21st century . Everyone has the same playing field .You need good employees in any business & need to cut out the dead wood asap thats what trial/casual is for . Its not as hard to trim employees as you think you just need to go about it the right way making them uncomfortable or giving them shit work continually usually makes them leave of their own accord ...problem solved . If you have a genuine reason for them to be cut low productivity etc is a valid reason for termination 3 warnings etc .

Theres more than 1 way to skin a cat as the old saying goes . Its more about your approach to the problems you percieve than actual barriers . Its rare for an employee to actually take you to the tribunal for anything if your fair about it . If your an ass it will happen .I find that being honest & giving them the truth about your reasons for termination is enough for them to get on with looking for a new job ...ive even payed them for sick days for them to attend interviews for a new job ...its all about your attitude & understanding towards both of your needs for a resolution that is amicable & if that fails ride them like a stolen mule they will soon leave :lol:

 

[Big A.D.]

No, you said there was too much government red tape preventing people starting businesses.

Cut the oppressive restrictions and costs on creating new businesses and hiring and firing people and the Australian government expenditure could be halved in 12 months with a stronger more sustainable economy arising within two years.

And again, hiring and firing people is very simple and straight forward.

Finding good people to hire in the first place is not.

Shifting the burden of obtaining minimum survival income from the public sector to the private sector is exactly what it says: removing a problem from government and creating a whole set of new problems for businesses.

For example, my business would probably be reluctant to hire a 22 year old who's just graduated in architecture. Sure, they might need the money because they're now set for a 6 month waiting period for the dole, but they'll be applying like crazy for junior positions at architecture firms and might only last 4-8 weeks before they find one and quit. Do you think my business (or any other business out there) wants to spend any time at all training and supervising someone who's virtually guaranteed to leave almost as soon as they've arrived? Someone with no skills or training can actually have negative productivity for at least the first few weeks because someone else has to take time off from their other duties to teach them how to do the job and fix the mistakes that they'll inevitably make. Happy to go through that process for someone who's committed to doing the work for a reasonable length of time, but a revolving door staffing policy is something most businesses specifically go out of their way to avoid.

 

[renovator]

No, you said there was too much government red tape preventing people starting businesses.

Cut the oppressive restrictions and costs on creating new businesses and hiring and firing people and the Australian government expenditure could be halved in 12 months with a stronger more sustainable economy arising within two years.

And again, hiring and firing people is very simple and straight forward.

Finding good people to hire in the first place is not.

Shifting the burden of obtaining minimum survival income from the public sector to the private sector is exactly what it says: removing a problem from government and creating a whole set of new problems for businesses.

For example, my business would probably be reluctant to hire a 22 year old who's just graduated in architecture. Sure, they might need the money because they're now set for a 6 month waiting period for the dole, but they'll be applying like crazy for junior positions at architecture firms and might only last 4-8 weeks before they find one and quit. Do you think my business (or any other business out there) wants to spend any time at all training and supervising someone who's virtually guaranteed to leave almost as soon as they've arrived? Someone with no skills or training can actually have negative productivity for at least the first few weeks because someone else has to take time off from their other duties to teach them how to do the job and fix the mistakes that they'll inevitably make. Happy to go through that process for someone who's committed to doing the work for a reasonable length of time, but a revolving door staffing policy is something most businesses specifically go out of their way to avoid.

I agree hiring the right people from day 1 is crucial & you can usually tell from the first day if they have the skills required. Proficient people in any field have a "no worries" attitude towards their job .Their confidence is evident from the first couple of hours .

 

[bordsilver]

Well bordie you edited/deleted your previous post pretty quick

In hindsight I felt I should have PM'd that to you instead. You know what I said to you though so it's irrelevant to others.

...anyway I dont expect anyone to bow to me on any level & im in a country atm where its common to worship the foreigners im continually telling them not to call me sir . Its more about commonsense.
i only wanted to know if you had any experience starting & running your own business because youve bleated a few times about the barriers & now i know youve never actually been through the experience only hiring casual for obviously a very small timeframe that by your own words "affected your profitability "( in your deleted post )to a point where it wasnt worthwhile .is hardly enough experience in the business to be telling everyone thats theres too many barriers .

Awesome. Cut all benefits now. Bid A.D.'s churn and "people knocking on my door" reasons are bollocks and he knows it

Secondly Im not sure why your amazed that i acknowledge theres costs . Ive said before theres costs but not enough to stop anyone from starting a venture . Your reference to not hiring as many people ....well welcome to the 21st century . Everyone has the same playing field .You need good employees in any business & need to cut out the dead wood asap thats what trial/casual is for . Its not as hard to trim employees as you think you just need to go about it the right way making them uncomfortable or giving them shit work continually usually makes them leave of their own accord ...problem solved . If you have a genuine reason for them to be cut low productivity etc is a valid reason for termination 3 warnings etc .

Theres more than 1 way to skin a cat as the old saying goes . Its more about your approach to the problems you percieve than actual barriers . Its rare for an employee to actually take you to the tribunal for anything if your fair about it . If your an ass it will happen .I find that being honest & giving them the truth about your reasons for termination is enough for them to get on with looking for a new job ...ive even payed them for sick days for them to attend interviews for a new job ...its all about your attitude & understanding towards both of your needs for a resolution that is amicable & if that fails ride them like a stolen mule they will soon leave :lol:

You sound like one of the evil employers Big A.D. keeps ranting about. He reckons too many treat people like sh1t and don't think about the longer term. You're saying you do it deliberately because you are thinking about the longer term :lol: Good work. Keep it up

I've given glowing references to move them on. Win-win for me and the employee. Tough titties on the new employer. :lol:

Edit: Note also that I work in an industry that doesn't have unions, (meaningful) awards, standard hours etc so my experiences are coloured by what other employers tell me.

 

[bordsilver]

Oops my bad. I ment 500/fortnight. Taken from an earlier post in this thread hence I compared it to 80 hrs. Where my tax estimate was $77 short partly compensated by my underestimating dole and rent assistance. 100/fn vs 63.20/wk and 500 vs 510 Making my overall calculation about 50 bucks out. Not bad I reckon for a kiwi living in nz with a belly full of booze.

To add the figures are less motivating here. When I left full time work and accepted govt assistance I effectively bought back my time for less than $4/hr. Those hours I now spend developing skills to look after myself should govt fail and helping others. Mind blowing the vield provided from helping a fellow man.... sure it's not paid there then or often not even directly by who you helped you.

My point stands. you are only working for the difference between what you actually get paid and your potential income from doing nothing. And all the dollars given out for free compete at the same value as ones people work hard for when it comes time to spend them.

Sure there needs to be some manner of looking after those less fortunate (of course I'd prefer by voluntary charity) but lets not pretend recycling tax money through dole payments destined to partially return in gst and excise tax has any genuine value to an economy. Especially when so much is lost/wasted at every beurocratic step.

Give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish is not just about being better for the man. Its also a hell of a lot better for those fitting the bill when your man has his hand out for a fish every week.

Haven't properly checked this for veracity, but this is one list of entitlements in Australia at the moment:

A single person with no children is 'entitled' to $510.50 per fortnight and a suite of these additional allowances/non-monetary assistance:
Centrepay
Clean Energy Advance
Clean Energy Supplement
Education Entry Payment
Health Care Card
Income Support Bonus
JobSearch Facilities
Jobs, Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance
Local Connections to Work
Pensioner Concession Card
Pensioner Education Supplement
Pharmaceutical Allowance
Remote Jobs and Communities Program
Rent Assistance
Rent Deduction Scheme
Skills for Education and Employment
Telephone Allowance