yid14 wrote:. But hey what do I know just a pommie living in N.Z who loves boxing but ends up arguing with a couple of aussie "Legends" everytime I dare to post on the board they've saved
For some reason this is the only thing that you've ever said that really is apt.
Please don't come with the whole story, another poor Brit who comes to the aussie forum and cops shit for having an opinion bull shit.
You came here thinking you would tell people what's what and that would be that, you've attacked nearly every member here that didn't join around the time you joined, and you're the most shit stirring little prick i've managed to come across in my 5 years here. You antoginize things with national debates that you shouldn't even be involved in....you're not a kiwi mate, so don't fight there fight.
You in short, just make no sense at all. So no one's picking on you cause you're British, it's simply because you're a fuckwit!
Last edited by Giancarlo on 11 Jun 2012, 01:21, edited 1 time in total.
yid14 wrote:New Zealand's economy is good, I manage to have 3 months off a year and travel on the kiwi dollar. The climate's about right as well not stinking hot but still even now in winter it's 18-19 during the day here in Auckland. It's getting a bit chilly at night and 1st thing but it's winter. My mate informs me the weather's pretty sh1t in Sydney at the mo, I guess I'll find out on sunday. It wasn't anything to write home about in Nov. and Dec last year.
I suppose that is why so many Kiwis have moved to the G20 country across the Tasman. As for climate we have occasional bad spells but none of our cities have sunk into the ground after an earthquake lately.
Yeah nice touch bring up a natural disaster that killed a load of people and ruined a city. Class
That part of Christchurch should never have been built on, it was sheer madness to let people live there, but they keep going back. Don't ask me to feel pity for stupidity. When there was flooding in Lansvale back in the 80s Fairfield Council bought the owners out, organised housing department accommodation for tenants, closed two caravan parks and pulled the houses down. I don't see the local government in Christchurch doing that.
There's major fault lines running all through Christchurch and the whole of Canterbury, How and where do you move 600,000 people? There are worse fault lines running through the capital Wellington, I guess by your reasoning we should move those 400,000 as well. Why do you think there's so many kiwi's in Oz? It's not for the Ozzy charm
yid14 wrote:There's major fault lines running all through Christchurch and the whole of Canterbury, How and where do you move 600,000 people? There are worse fault lines running through the capital Wellington, I guess by your reasoning we should move those 400,000 as well. Why do you think there's so many kiwi's in Oz? It's not for the Ozzy charm
Maybe it is for the better wages. New Zealand has a lot of faults.
yid14 wrote:There's major fault lines running all through Christchurch and the whole of Canterbury, How and where do you move 600,000 people? There are worse fault lines running through the capital Wellington, I guess by your reasoning we should move those 400,000 as well. Why do you think there's so many kiwi's in Oz? It's not for the Ozzy charm
Maybe it is for the better wages. New Zealand has a lot of faults.
The wages are certainly better in Oz, it's making big news here that alot of kiwis are going over to work in the mines. There'll always be a market for jobs that Aussie nationals don't want to do. After world war 2 in Britain alot of West Indians were shipped over as returning Brits didn't wish to collect rubbish and drive buses, quite understandable really, fighting 6 years for your country and not wanting to do a menial job. I think nowadays it's just laziness and high benefits.
The past 10 days I've been working in Perth with a couple of Kiwis that are waiting to get into the mines. What a long winded process
Yid...will they rebuild Christchurch? A while ago there was some talk of abandoning it due to the instability (that'd be a major tragedy in itself if it happened. The place would be a macabre and eerie ghost town)
yid14 wrote:There's major fault lines running all through Christchurch and the whole of Canterbury, How and where do you move 600,000 people? There are worse fault lines running through the capital Wellington, I guess by your reasoning we should move those 400,000 as well. Why do you think there's so many kiwi's in Oz? It's not for the Ozzy charm
Maybe it is for the better wages. New Zealand has a lot of faults.
The wages are certainly better in Oz, it's making big news here that alot of kiwis are going over to work in the mines. There'll always be a market for jobs that Aussie nationals don't want to do. After world war 2 in Britain alot of West Indians were shipped over as returning Brits didn't wish to collect rubbish and drive buses, quite understandable really, fighting 6 years for your country and not wanting to do a menial job. I think nowadays it's just laziness and high benefits.
Brute wrote:No, we have full employment. New Zealand doesn't.
..Unemployment rate rises despite jobs boost
ABC – Thu, Jun 7, 2012 1:47 PM AEST
........
Australia's unemployment rate rose to 5.1 per cent in May despite the surprise creation of nearly 40,000 full-time jobs, as more people joined the hunt for work.
5.1% is utter BS. Double it and you're closer to the real unemployment figure. Governments over the years have become more and more clever (not) in their interpretation and definition of 'unemployed'. eg you didn't work but were sent to a 1 day course this month?....you're not counted as unemployed for that month
bollox wrote:5.1% is utter BS. Double it and you're closer to the real unemployment figure. Governments over the years have become more and more clever (not) in their interpretation and definition of 'unemployed'. eg you didn't work but were sent to a 1 day course this month?....you're not counted as unemployed for that month
Try telling that to those in here peddling the jingo yet again.
bollox wrote:The past 10 days I've been working in Perth with a couple of Kiwis that are waiting to get into the mines. What a long winded process
Yid...will they rebuild Christchurch? A while ago there was some talk of abandoning it due to the instability (that'd be a major tragedy in itself if it happened. The place would be a macabre and eerie ghost town)
The CBD is being repaired but many of the taller buildings are still waiting to be demolished, I've sorted out work for a few mates back in England and there in Christchurch now. The big problem is all the aftershocks and the unsteady buildings, there just bracing themselves for another earthquake, but yeah in the inner suburbs there are loads of condemded houses and there are still lots of people living with no electricity or/and portaloo's. Christchurch got voted fifth in cities in the world where you wouldn't want to live. I think Kabol in Afghanistan won it (so to speak).
Brute wrote:No, we have full employment. New Zealand doesn't.
..Unemployment rate rises despite jobs boost
ABC – Thu, Jun 7, 2012 1:47 PM AEST
........
Australia's unemployment rate rose to 5.1 per cent in May despite the surprise creation of nearly 40,000 full-time jobs, as more people joined the hunt for work.
How does that compare to the UK? 5% is universally recognised as full employment. UK is cheering about it dropping to 8.2%, the OECD average. New Zealand is still over 6% in spite of recent improvements.
Last edited by Brute on 09 Jun 2012, 19:42, edited 2 times in total.
bollox wrote:5.1% is utter BS. Double it and you're closer to the real unemployment figure. Governments over the years have become more and more clever (not) in their interpretation and definition of 'unemployed'. eg you didn't work but were sent to a 1 day course this month?....you're not counted as unemployed for that month
You are confused. Curly Howard changed the law so that 1 hour work a week was classed as employed, but seriously, do you know anybody who only works one hour a week? The latest figures show that full time jobs rose and part time jobs fell.
I saw a story from one idiot talking about the lack of jobs for 13 to 17 year olds. Never mind that they are almost all still at school.
They are on 8.2% on their latest figures. With a minimum wage less than $8 per hour it is more like slavery, if your job has not been contracted to some sheriff's department with thousands of convicts available to do your job for nothing while the sheriff lines his pockets.
Brute wrote:They are on 8.2% on their latest figures. With a minimum wage less than $8 per hour it is more like slavery, if your job has not been contracted to some sheriff's department with thousands of convicts available to do your job for nothing while the sheriff lines his pockets.
No, my question was , what is the official % of people unemployed that the US government uses to define when their country is not in full employment?
I'll give you a clue. It's not the % you stated was "universally recognised".
Since 1978 they have defined it as 3% for people over 20, but never achieved it. In 1965, with 14 million Americans living on the breadline they defined it as 5%.
Aim low and miss.
Brute wrote:Since 1978 they have defined it as 3% for people over 20, but never achieved it.
So, 5% NOT 'universally recognised'.
Universally recognised by realistic governments. In the 1960s Australia used to get less than 2% unemployment but with mechanization and computerization that just does not happen now. A hole dug by ten men is now dug by one man with a front end loader.
bollox wrote:5.1% is utter BS. Double it and you're closer to the real unemployment figure. Governments over the years have become more and more clever (not) in their interpretation and definition of 'unemployed'. eg you didn't work but were sent to a 1 day course this month?....you're not counted as unemployed for that month
bollox wrote:5.1% is utter BS. Double it and you're closer to the real unemployment figure. Governments over the years have become more and more clever (not) in their interpretation and definition of 'unemployed'. eg you didn't work but were sent to a 1 day course this month?....you're not counted as unemployed for that month
bollox wrote:5.1% is utter BS. Double it and you're closer to the real unemployment figure. Governments over the years have become more and more clever (not) in their interpretation and definition of 'unemployed'. eg you didn't work but were sent to a 1 day course this month?....you're not counted as unemployed for that month
This.
Is crap.
How is it crap? I stand by the claim that the real unemployment figure is closer to 10% rather than 5%. They send them on useless courses to get them off the official numbers for that month. Then of course there are the ones that have not bothered signing up as unemployed. On top of that there's the rubbery accounting
Yid....I hope whatever happens to Wellington that it all works out ok. It's been a while since it happened and there seems to be not much progress
As for Billy Dib...decent (dirty) fighter, not much more
