Gavin Flower wrote:
> On 27/12/12 07:54, Berend Tober wrote:
>> ...regarding New
>> Zealand expatriate work visas and ... that it
>> was notably easier for foreigners under age 30 to get
>> permission to work. Can anyone with direct experience comment
>> on this government-sanctioned discrimination?
>>
> I think it might be that they want healthy workers who likely
> will pay lots of tax before requiring to much medical treatment -
> most people use the public health care system in New Zealand, so
> it as assumed you will not be relying on private medical insurance.
That would be an obvious-enough inference to draw.
I guess I was hoping for more practical, direct insight, such as
"Despite how skilled and a productive worker you might be, don't
bother applying if you are anywhere near middle-age, or if you
are likely to become middle-aged." There was this interesting
1976 movie called "Logan's Run" about a dystopian future that
similarly devalued the experienced.
The current job posting by Brent Wood does not specifically
mention age requirements/restrictions, and does not specify any
particular amount of experience, but they do in fact require
"experience". Knowing that the visa quota system is biased
against age, one might reasonably conclude that no one with more
than 5 to 10 years experience would be able to qualify because of
the government restrictions.
It might have been polite of the advertising organization to make
that clear, as did the guy that posted the flyer at the technical
conference.
I wonder, if an applicant were within the government-approved age
range, but then worked long enough so as to exceed the limits,
would their work visa suddenly be withdrawn, having contributed
to the tax base and maybe established a family there, then be
forced to vacate the premise simply because they aged out?
