Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Bit of a tease, they don't explain why New Zealand are seeing an exodus in over-30s. I suspect there is an elephant in the room here that isn't being discussed. Particularly in that age range I doubt people are getting a sudden urge to adventure and excitement that they didn't feel in their 20s.

These articles like to throw out random economic statistics as though they have explanatory power, but they really don't. What exactly are the policies at play here?

> “Our wages are similar in Australia and employment law means longer probation periods, but the pros definitely outweigh the cons”

It is just a minor point, but really. If a country has an employment problem, short probation periods are a terrible idea. To get employers to employ people the easiest strategy is to make it easy and safe for them to employ people. Let them hire and fire at will. What is it with people and this instinct to immediately make life harder for the only person willing to offer someone a job. If people are leaving the island and a contributing factor is they don't have jobs, make it easy to give them a job. Don't make it harder then do this mild surprise routine when they move somewhere where people can actually employ them.

> Let them hire and fire people at will

India is facing a weird problem. Everyone keeps increasing the notice period. Unlike the US where you can quit on the spot, Indian firms, almost all, have a 90 day notice period.

But they rarely give offer letters to anyone who isn't already on notice period.

So becomes the vicious cycle. Be on NP to get an offer letter. But who will risk resigning before getting an offer

And then HRs as stupid questions like "you already have an offer why are you still looking for a change" while having zero self awareness that they are contributing to the cycle.

If everyone made NP to be 15 days or 20 days then people will not get time to attend 100 interviews

Moral of the story: nobody wants to take meaningful decisions. Everything thinks exclusively of the short term

> India is facing a weird problem

Corporate India is facing way too many weird problems, not just 90-day notice periods:

1. Refusal to provide leaving documents if you leave on less than excellent terms, but you absolutely need pristine docs and sometimes multiple references when joining

2. Salary expectations as compulsory form fields during job applications, but no salary ranges provided in job descriptions

3. An unhealthy approach to leaves - need doctor certificates, way too early notices for leaves more than a few days, too few leaves, etc.

4. A sudden leap in "immediate joining" requirements - you need to come at once, but you can only leave after at least 90 days

5. Playing games with insurance, salary deductions and compulsory contribution requirements to management's favorite CSR pots

In the past few years I've become so frustrated that I just don't bother with large company job applications, or messages from Indian recruiters, because there's a 99% chance there's a really crappy process involved. Smaller firms with good founders / non-Indian consulting roles are a lot more relaxing, and most of the times pay is higher as well.

And they now need PAN and ADHAAR for even applying!

And nobody ever gives early release for their employees.

In many EU countries it's common to have 3-6-month notice period and contacts with unlimited term. And somehow people are moving between companies. If you are not willing to wait 6 months for a new employee - just get a contractor.

I always find it interesting employers only look at the short term benefits. Generally employment safety laws dampen income rise over time so for an employer it is cheaper to hold on to someone than hire a new, which also lessens knowledge loss.

That isn't to their long term benefit. A similar argument would be that consumers should be aiming for an economy like South Sudan. GDP per capita of around $400/annum. Consumers like to minimise spending and so if the South Sudanese only spend a few hundred dollars a year on average that must be great for them...

The thing the low wages argument misses is that employers don't actually want to minimise labour spending, they optimise by increasing budget for labour all the time. They want to minimise wasteful and unproductive labour spending. If people will take less money, they'll offer less money. If a role doesn't add value, they'll cut the role. If a role is adding money on the margins though, they're enthusiastic about hiring more people even if the wages paid are a bit higher, because it is a win-win situation where the workers make more money and the business makes more profit.

Long story short - it isn't at all clear that low wages driven by hiring impediments are a long term win for businesses. It might just be a lose-lose situation where they happen to offer a worse deal to workers as a byproduct of being unable to maximise their profits.

In 2023, the Australian government announced a direct pathway to citizenship for New Zealander citizens who live in Australia for four years.

I think that’s a pretty big incentive to move from New Zealand to Australia.

There has been free movement back and forward since 1973. Citizenship hardly matters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Tasman_Travel_Arrangemen...

That's really hardly an incentive at all. We Kiwis have always been granted a special category visa which gives us permanent residency in Australia. Unless you want to vote, commit crimes without being deported or milk the welfare system there's little benefit to citizenship.

It’s because of high cost of living and a stagnating economy, particularly the job market. Kiwis find their skillsets valued more highly elsewhere. (And their housing, food and medical costs go down too) It was in the article.

https://archive.ph/FXfp1

For the same reason governments put price controls in place during catastrophes. Because they never studied enough or believe their voters never studied enough to understand basic economics. Likely the latter. Governments believing their people too stupid to understand the right move is often the reason for implementing dumb measures.

A lot of it is that people get far more angry at price gouging than a shortage.

Yes, because they don't understand economics. It's a classic "sounds bad but is actually the fastest way to solve the problem" situation. So we kill people by delaying more resources in order to keep the optics nice.

Allowing employers to fire people at will leads to abuse of their employees. There's also the problem that sexism/racism will be a driver of those sackings too.

The other side of the coin: if it's hard to fire employee, company will not hire extra people and it's hard to get a permanent position in such circumstances.

Yes, but in general, abusive employers are far more common than employers that don't hire people. Companies that are reluctant to employ people due to employee protection laws are very likely to be abusive employers.

>> let them hire and fire at will.

New Zealand is not silicon valley. Two things: tourism and agriculture. These are seasonal industries. New Zealand might not want to deal with thousands of companies hiring staff for only a season, or using visiting backpackers to cheaply cover jobs that should go to locals. And they probably dont want to hear about import temp labor from asia.

I remember visiting Whistler BC a few years back during the ski season. All the hotel staff seemed to be auzzi or kiwi. The actual locals couldnt find proper jobs with so many backpackers willing to live communally for a few months and then disappear. While certainly a boon for local businesses, the people who actually vote on stuff were not happy. (Canada is too big and diverse to change its labor laws for this issue. New Zealand is not.)

With NZ cost of living if you factor in higher labor costs it will make everything even more expensive relative to income. Cheap temporary labor is great not only for the companies, it's good for the consumers too, bringing prices down and availability up. The backpacker is in and out, dosen't need medical care, social security and other services.

Many of the jobs that are low paid backpacker frendly, the locals aren't to keen to do. If you don't have them there, many busineses will close down, because margins can't support 100% local staff.

It's crazy capitalism is now at the point where no one having jobs is a good thing, and local job creation not going to locals is actually good for the locals because it brings prices down for non-local tourists. Cheap temporary labor bringing prices down for tourists benefits locals how?

How are people supposed to live in this world?

Not to mention when I travel I go to meet locals and see the local culture.

It's not the capitalism fault. It's the limitation of the physical world. You barter your skills for other's products/services.

More people in the tribe = more people to swap with (larger market). More people who take the shitty low paid job = cheaper products.

If you don't have the cheap backpackers working shitty jobs in the hotels you won't get the tourists, who bring a lot of money in in places like Queenstown. Less money = less businesses = less jobs.

Offline world is a hard and unforgiving place. Either we find how to barter our skills/products or we rely on the taxes from the ones who are productive.

The real world is not a highschool econ classroom. It is far more complex than supply and demand. Beyond barter for labor, workers give up vast abilities to live in a society that protects them from abuse. Part of that is allowing them to create and enforce rules to protect them from known evils.

you can't cheat the supply/demand of atoms with social constructs.

You might be able to change the way the pie is sliced, but not grow it that way. Productivity is something in the realm of the real world not just philosophical categories of good/bad.

It seems to be a grass-is-greener thing, except that when you get to Australia you find that most of the grass is brown. Or a politicians-fallacy relocation, life is tough, we'll move somewhere else which is mostly the same but at least we'll have done something.

Another thing not covered in the article: Some people are leaving. OK, good luck to them, and I hope things work out. Now what? Do you lose points if people leave? What difference does it make?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com