|
Skip to make comment
|
Skip to read comments |
Send to a friend
NZCPR
Guest Forum
Alasdair
Thompson
12
June 2011
Young
people need youth rates of pay
Six
years ago when the Labour government was planning to abolish
minimum pay rates for youth, our organization, the Employers
and Manufacturers Association, said the move was certain to
hurt the very people it was intended to help. So it has
proved.
In
2005 EMA said if the Bill introduced to Parliament on February
22nd became law, the unemployment rate then at 12
per cent for 15 to 19 year olds, was very likely to rise.
Regrettably our prediction was way off beam. Youth rates of
unemployment have more than doubled to 27.5 per cent of those
unemployed.
They
are still rising; over the past year the youth unemployment
rate went up 2.3 per cent from 25.2 per cent in 2010, at a
time when unemployment overall declined slightly.
This
rate of unemployment for young people represents a terrible
risk for the future of all of us. Its coming at a time of life
for these young people when they need to establish regular
work habits and learn the basic skills needed to hold down a
job with prospects.
When
young people leave school they find it hard enough
to get started; earning a minimum youth rate often got a
teenager’s career underway.
Besides,
for an employer with a choice between an experienced worker
and an inexperienced worker it makes sense for them to take on
the experienced worker every time.
EMA
surveyed its members on the issue in late 2004 to find 14 per
cent of employers were paying youth rates.
Some of them said they would not hire school leavers at
all if youth rates were unavailable; they would look for older
workers instead.
They
said this because their experience of employing 16 and 17 year
olds who have little or no regular work experience, is they
often need a lot of supervision, and that adds to the costs of
any business. Then, as well as the lack of experience and
skills, there’s their teenage issues.
All
in all unless there is some sort of incentive for an employer
to take on them on, young people will continue to be over
represented in the unemployment numbers.
The
statistical evidence that employers’ fears are well grounded
is strong.
In
her 2006 PhD thesis Gail Pacheco’s independent research
studied the impact of removing the minimum wage. She analysed
huge amounts of data drawn from Statistics New Zealand’s Household
Labour Force Survey and Income Survey from 1986 to 2004 to
find the impact of raising the minimum wage would fall most
adversely on 15- 19 year olds. Overall she calculated that job
opportunities for all teenagers would reduce by nearly 20 per
cent if youth rates were abolished.
Gail
Pacheco study of those earning the minimum wage was by looking
at their demographic characteristics to see how employment
and/or unemployment impacts vary when the minimum wage applies
to them. The results are clear.
Her
report says when the minimum wage is allowed to rise the
higher ‘minimum’ wage “becomes significant, negative and
usually large in magnitude.”
The
study not only confirmed the value of youth rates, but also
detailed what would happen if there was a large increase in
the minimum wage. Labour
is saying they will increase it to 15% if elected.
The
most adversely affected groups in the study were 16-19 year
olds. It reported
that a 10% rise in the real minimum wage resulted in a 19.3%
and 10.2% cumulative fall in the employment propensity for
16-17 and 18-19 year olds respectively.
Other
findings from the study showed equally grave concerns,
for example Maori stand out as a subgroup most adversely
affected by a higher minimum wage. Maoris
earning minimum wages experience significant falls in their
employment propensity along with drop in their usual total
weekly hours worked. Specifically, a 10% rise in the real
minimum wage results in Maoris on the minimum wage suffering
from a 15.8% point drop in employment propensity.
Where
even small positive impacts on employment propensity were
found, minimum wage workers were still usually found to
experience a significant decline in their usual total weekly
hours worked.
In
addition, a higher minimum wage reduces the labour force
participation rate of those aged 16-29 years on the minimum
wage.
To
top all this off, the research concluded that individuals that
leave the labour force aged between 16 and 19 years tend to
become more inactive, neither working nor studying.
When
the recession arrived in 2008 the trends identified in the
Pacheco research were exacerbated.
Their negative impacts compounded.
Now
its scarcely surprising that employers agree youth pay rates
should be re-introduced.
The
abolition of them in the first place was a fair weather idea.
Now it’s pretty obvious why we had them in the first place.
Skip to top |
Skip to make comment |
Send to a friend
Your
Comments:
Your comments
will be published on the READERS FORUM. To view
>>>
To comment go to
letters to editor
>>>
Skip to top |
Skip to make comment |
Skip to read comments
Send to
a friend:
|