High Moz. Even with the fixed costs I suspect there are strategic and incentive reasons that justify their behaviour:

1) Labour generally complements other labour – so having people work “flexible” hours means that they don’t just lose an hour or two of work – they lose the value from the “interaction” of staff.

2) Giving one person flexible hours may hurt the incentives of other staff members.

However, to some degree I think this is a rule of thumb firms follow – which is not always the best way to make policy. Over time, as the benefits of flexibility rise, firms will adapt methinks.

But that still doesn’t get down to the zero value that most employers assign to part time geeks.

construction jobs: http://www.gruspersonnel.com
construction blog: http://applyforconstructionjobs.blogspot.com/

you can also find me on twitter:
@Tradesmen : http://twitter.com/Tradesmen

If your a skilled tradesmen go find a job online!

Inflexibility is the problem stemming from it indeed – it is one of the main issues in the labour market for me.

There are just so many things that screw up the adjustment of labour – which is a pain when that input is also tied directly to the welfare of almost everyone in society. That is what makes a proper understanding of the labour market SO important.

Matt Nolan :
@goonix
Because the marginal utility of leisure is diminishing.

I see this now, cheers.

moz :
@goonix
Realpolitik

I thought it might be something like this. It suggests there’s still a lot of inflexibility in the labour market.

That is true – there are limited resources. But if the staff coming in are more productive then we can have more stuff with the same number of initial resources. Furthermore, there is no indication that a migrant won’t increase production by more than they consume in a society – in fact, if they are skilled they will do just that.

It isn’t a question of “who is paying” it is a question of “how much is being produced” – payment is an arbitrary function of what the country actually makes.

“AKA: You can the out-of-work welder that he isn’t “solely displaced”, and others’ efforts are “CREATING JOBS my friend”. I’ll stand over here with the camera.”

I would ask them why they think they deserve the job more than someone who their boss said was more productive than them.

Now for my argument about “importing workers” – I never said do it at the minimum wage mate, you have open borders and you pay the “market wage”. If only migrants are willing to work and New Zealander’s decide they don’t want to we end up in a situation where the government could tax the people actually doing work and give a benefit. In theory New Zealander’s could be earning just as much (if people overseas would work for less and were more productive) and wouldn’t have to do anything.

It isn’t up to the government to “set up our skill set” – it is up to the INDIVIDUAL. If the individual wants to invest in skills, and gain the reward from it, then they can. If the individual WANTS TO WORK they can do so at the market wage – if they don’t want to they don’t have to.

“See what I mean? Half the time I wonder what planet you guys are on, ‘cos it often doesn’t seem to be Earth.”

This is what is called a “hypothetical situation” which I was using to illustrate the disjoint between work and actual real income. Work is the cost of getting income – income is what we value.

(Main passage here) If migrants increase the income of everyone else it seems self defeating to kick them out of the country – even if “there is less work”.

“From the other thread: “I don’t care about New Zealander’s anymore than I care about other people”. So, why have national governments then?”

Indeed – wouldn’t it be nice if we had a society where people weren’t placed into arbitrary nations and we had free borders.

Do you know why we don’t have this – because countries like New Zealand don’t want to take the associated pay cut that this would lead to, even though it would improve the lives of the very poor overseas BY HEAPS.

Hi Rainman,

Indeed, economists think in a special sorta way – but I think once the underlying assumptions are a bit clearer you might find is sexy rather than weird 😉

“So, if the immigrants work really, really hard they will create jobs for the displaced workers?”

If migrants come into the country and start making productive things that are sold overseas then there will be jobs servicing the migrants. If NZer’s are making things to sell overseas, migrants could come in and create services for the NZer’s. That is a bit oversimplified – but that is a basic sorta way it could work.

More intuitively the important thing is prices, and the fact that inputs make production. If we get more migrants, then we have more inputs to make things with. If they start making stuff, then there is stuff. Given that they are making stuff prices will change and other people will move into things that provide them with a return – the migrants coming into the economy changes prices, but once prices adjust people are back in work.

Economists believe (with good empirical evidence) that there is a range where unemployment can lie – and even if migrants flooded in, in the medium term prices would adjust such that unemployment falls to that level.

The problem is that prices don’t always move straight away (and capital can’t be put up immediately) – so in the short term, if demand is weak, we don’t want to let heaps of migrants in. But letting in people with skills, who really add to the production of the nation, is still often a good thing – it is like discovering oil, or finding a whole bunch of new land!

I will carry on in a new comment – one sec

Leisure is a technical economics term to mean what you described about non-work time 😀

BTW, I’m Matt not Mark – although Mark is still a good name. However, I would prefer it if you call me John if you aren’t going to call me Matt 😉