FIFY

25 comments on “FIFY ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Uturn 1

   2 March 2012 at 2:19 pm

   “A National government can’t have a positive impact on the job market. It is what it is.”

   FIFY
2. Vicky32 2

   2 March 2012 at 2:36 pm

   One thing I needed yo know – what FIFY means. Now, may I assume it’s “fixed it for you”? 😀
   • Kotahi Tane Huna 2.1

     2 March 2012 at 2:57 pm

     LMGTFY 😛
3. tsmithfield 3

   2 March 2012 at 3:25 pm

   If the sole measure of success is the number of jobs, then governments get in the way rather than help. Here are some basic things governments do that put a lid on jobs:

   1. Minimum wage.
   2. Social welfare benefits.

   If neither of those existed, then the unemployment rate would evaporate very quickly I suspect, as work that was uneconomical at those levels would become economical at a lower rate. Also, the lower rate would be attractive because it would not be competing with the various social welfare benefits.
   • McFlock 3.1

     2 March 2012 at 3:28 pm

     Lol.

     Yeah, I forgot that there were no unemployed people prior to the minimum wage and social welfare. /sarc
   • Draco T Bastard 3.2

     2 March 2012 at 3:34 pm

     Here’s some things that RWNJs do to ensure that nobody but them has a decent living standard and that it becomes really easy for them to threaten people and thus make them serfs and slaves:

     1.) Remove the minimum wage
     2.) Remove social welfare
     • ianmac 3.2.1

       2 March 2012 at 4:42 pm

       Unless of course it is someone like TS becomes ill or gets the sack for playing on the Net during working hours. He of course would spurn any form of welfare and soldier on penniless or is that centsless?
   • Kaplan 3.3

     2 March 2012 at 3:46 pm

     Move to Bangladesh TS. You’d love it there.
     • tsmithfield 3.3.1

       2 March 2012 at 6:37 pm

       Duh. I only said if. I didn’t actually say I wanted those things abolished. The fact remains that there probably would be more jobs. Probably not well paid though. That being the case, our governments do take actions that reduce jobs through minimum wages, welfare benefits etc.
       • felix 3.3.1.1

         2 March 2012 at 8:03 pm

         Correct, you didn’t actually say anything.

         Thanks for your input.
         • Colonial Viper 3.3.1.1.1

           3 March 2012 at 3:30 pm

           If eliminating the minimum wage and social benefits won’t get rid of unemployment, perhaps weekly beatings for anyone unemployed will quickly create the growth in high skill, high wage jobs we are all waiting for?
   • lefty 3.4

     2 March 2012 at 8:03 pm

     That’s why there is no one unemployed in countries with no minimum wage and no social securtiy net is it?

     OOPs can’t be, because those countries have even higher unemployment than us.
   • Foreign Waka 3.5

     3 March 2012 at 6:12 pm

     To create jobs NZ will need the production, distribution and innovation hub for a product that people want and need plus has a reasonable product life cycle. Except from commodities, food and animals what has NZ produced, distributed and innovated (ongoing) to give the economy those jobs? The companies have no real stake in NZ as most of them are global and 4.2 Mil people are but a blip on the world wide consumer landscape. The issue is far more complex and deserves a bit more than just throwing mud, from all directions I may add.
     How about processing the wood that we export in the final product these countries undertake once the logs are there? Expanding on the concept of milk and milk related food stuffs. For example, Cadbury is producing the chocolate in Australia and we do not get it any cheaper. So why are we doing this? Now there are points the Government strategic and economic advisers can earn their money and the PM should get his priorities right. As for the Finance Minister, I won’t hold my breath as this job would demand someone who has more knowledge than how to share a sheep (and there is nothing wrong with that).
   • mik e 3.6

     3 March 2012 at 9:03 pm

     tsm has been tried and failed miserably. Argentina tried it and unemployment went from 6% to 38%
4. Fisiani 4

   2 March 2012 at 5:23 pm

   Of course the 62,000 employed under National does not count here.
   John Key explains how Government creates the conditions for employment. It should not set about being the employer.
   http://www.johnkey.co.nz/archives/1408-Key-Notes-Special-Edition-on-Welfare-Reform.html
   • RedLogix 4.1

     3 March 2012 at 8:54 am

     And how many jobs were destroyed at the same time fisi?
     • Akldnut 4.1.1

       3 March 2012 at 3:19 pm

       “It should not set about being the employer.”

       Good point – there’s 61 people in the Beehive screwing us right now that should be the first to go.
   • Colonial Viper 4.2

     3 March 2012 at 3:27 pm

     Of course the 62,000 employed under National does not count here.

     Directors positions for Jenny Shipley and her mates should first be deducted from the above total.

     And the couple of dozen cycleway jobs created by National need to be added.
5. felix 5

   2 March 2012 at 5:24 pm

   Please ignore tsmithfield, he’s trolling.

   He wants you to focus on the provocative part of his comment when all you need to do is reject his first sentence and be done with him.
6. Ad 6

   2 March 2012 at 6:59 pm

   We can probably recall a time where central government had massive levers over the entire economy – it employed almost the entire utility construction sector, the entire telecommunications sector, the entire energy sector, the steel manufacturing sector, and owned quite a lot of the banking sector. And wish we could return at least in part to that moment in history.

   We really can Own Our Own Future if the public – through the government – owns major parts of business here. It’s not popular theory. It’s certainly not fashionable here. But look to Temasek or indeed to the recent Gordon Campbell article on the usefulness of state-directed capitalism through public control of public corporations. We really can have the capacity to change employment – the definition of agency – if we are prepared to support a strong public sector.

   There is no middle ground now between local public ownership and foreign ownership, because we have left it too late to develop a local capital market. We seriously need a great surge in economic nationalism – sparked by the public fear of loss of economic sovereignty through land sales – because we have no other way to reverse the hollowing-out of private capital to overseas interests.

   To those who worry that this theme is state capitalism gone mad, I would respond that the world has gone mad and we are in a massive and sustained crisis of capital that will currently end with states having no power other than a residual one as regulators of the market, and then only minimally so.

   My next election vote will go to the party with the greatest expression of economic patriotism. That’s where the jobs lie.
7. Hami Shearlie 7

   3 March 2012 at 12:13 am

   Apparently in the last wee while there have been 15,000 new part -time jobs created! Whooo-hoooo!
   Unfortunately, in the same last wee while there have been 13,000 full-time jobs which have disappeared! Not so whooo-hoooo now, are we Mr Key!

   I hear talk from NZ first about having a community wage, which sounds a bit like work-for-the-dole in the 1990’s, I think. It failed, because places like schools etc, were taking on work-for-the-dole people to do work around the schools, like painting etc which was economically good for the school, but all the painters who the school had previously hired to do the work, complained that the scheme was destroying their businesses!! So really, the only work that unemployed people could do, without destroying workers jobs would be work done now by volunteers, like meals-on-wheels, volunteering at hospitals to direct patients to appointments, helping the Cancer Society to take patients to and from chemotherapy, helping at the Sallies foodbanks or op-shops, or perhaps removing all the rubbish from the islands in the Hauraki Gulf etc! Maybe even topping up homecare hours for the elderly, instead of their allotted 2 hours per week, the unemployed could give them another two hours, thereby not interfering with the jobs of the people already employed in this way! These kinds of work-for-the-dole schemes all sound good until you look more closely!!

   I’d be interested in what others think about this!
   • Vicky32 7.1

     3 March 2012 at 12:44 am

     These kinds of work-for-the-dole schemes all sound good until you look more closely!!

     Last time these schemes were tried, our local primary school was one of the organisations, along with the Sallies, that refused to take part, because the scheme would take jobs from people as in your example of the painters. So, the experiment didn’t last very long.
8. robertguyton 8

   3 March 2012 at 8:42 am

   I’ve been reading The Standard for a long while now and marveling at the shallowness of some of the Rightwing commentors who hang out here , but this nose-dive by tsmithfield is perhaps the best I’ve seen and was worth the wait.
   • tc 8.1

     3 March 2012 at 9:15 am

     The right side is all about them and not a wider view where the whole of society benefits or gets a fair go so it tends to be shallow, self serving and insular as so few are invited. then there’s the inbreeding so best look away.
9. starlight 9

   3 March 2012 at 9:57 pm

   There is a strong tie between key and goldman sachs here in nz.
   Is English really the finance minister?
   Does English really have any say on all things jobs,growth,benefits etc?
   Why would he, when Philip Borkin a Goldman Sachs economist is right here in nz
   supporting key,there is an office,goldman sachs nz ltd in auckland,Borkin’s place of
   employment.
   That would explain the rush to run up debt to historic levels,the irresponsible
   spending on questionable targets,the ‘austeritising’ of the nz economy,the
   oppression of the workers for extra profit for key’s mates and corporate mates,
   putting in ‘key’ friendly mates in the media organisations,selling of our asssets,
   welcoming in fracking and oil exploration of our precious land and sea,the
   list goes on,the proof is all there,however the media are ‘key’ owned
   so all of the information wont get the time of day,wheres wiki?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS