OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!
848 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 24 25 26 27 28 … 34 Newer→ Last
-
DexterX, in reply to
Form the work I do which involves pricing and to stay in business a constant analysis of the trends in the costing of work in the wider market - when analysing a range of quotes in the period from late 2008 what I have found is, taking into account movements in the prices of materials, the cost of Labour is tracking significantly downward towards the minimum wage.
There is a reluctance to pay for quality.
That is the nature of the recession and retrenchment that is presently underway.
-
It is only now that they are out of office that they are seeking to connect with what one could regard as their base principles.
Good. Parties that have lost power should be doing that.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
DexterX, you make a fair point but you might also recall that employment was comparatively high and Labour also introduced other income support measures like Working for Families. If that sounds like I'm making excuses, I don't mean too, I mean only to broaden the focus since, in fact, not that many people are paid the minimum wage so it's significance is best considered as part of bundle of measures (possibly even including access to training and other active labour market policies).
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
The minimum wage in 1999 wasn't $6.50 - in 1997 it increased to around $8.40
My bad, it was $7.00 as of 1 March 1997 (see page 24), not $6.50. So you're way wrong with your $8.40 - that graph is inflation-adjusted to 2006 dollars.
By 1999 I was earning a hot $9.50 so the minimum wage wasn't really a focus, and I'd moved on to other things when the minimum wage got its first increase under the incoming Labour government. -
Matthew Poole, in reply to
not that many people are paid the minimum wage
Unite puts the number into the 100-200k range. That's not heaps, but it's far from vanishingly tiny.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Labour hasn’t done as much as for workers in their 9 years as people blindly and willingly attribute to them.
And they sure didn't do anything to reverse Richardson and Shipley's evil benefit slashing.
-
Sacha, in reply to
what I have found is, taking into account movements in the prices of materials, the cost of Labour is tracking significantly downward towards the minimum wage.
There is a reluctance to pay for quality.
Thanks.
-
Unite puts the number into the 100-200k range. That’s not heaps, but it’s far from vanishingly tiny.
And those on wages less than around $16-17 are directly affected by the minimum wage. If the gap between their wages and the minimum decreases, theirs must increase to maintain relative attractiveness. A degree of flattening in the economy occurs as well, as employers cannot maintain the absolute percentage wage differentials possible in a low-wage economy.
The theory on the right is that this all bleeds through into inflation. Certainly, some of it does, but low inflation rates under the last government showed that wasn't necessarily the case. Much of it is absorbed as decreased returns to business owners and shareholders. Under the last Government, the percentage of the economy represented by wages increased from 42% to 45%. Still less than half of the economy, but an increase all the same.
-
Changing tack a bit, from the Herald today: Key pledges state service shake-up.
While the debt problem lies mostly in the private sector, the Savings Working Group identified increased efficiency in the state sector as a quick initial fix and Mr Key said his Government would act to achieve that.
Sigh.
And Goff hasn't impressed me much lately, so credit where it's due:
But in a fiery reply to Mr Key's speech, Labour leader Phil Goff said the Government lacked ideas on how challenges should be met.
"The great plan of the Government to solve our problems is to slash spending on health and education and sell off assets.
"Where are the jobs? The best type of welfare reform is to have jobs that people can go to."
-
Jacqui Dunn, in reply to
Parties that have lost power should be doing that.
What about parties that are in power, but seem to be just the "yes-people" to the Nats' bidding? I caught Hone H. just towards the end of the interview with Mark Sainsbury, and despite what I may feel about this man, what he was saying made a lot of sense.
-
DexterX, in reply to
Good for you.
-
DexterX, in reply to
One of the tragedies of the three term Labour Government the "depressive effect" that working for families had on workers seeking a living wage through the bargaining process.
What you had was working people through the tax take subsiding the income support of working people with families.
An obscene aspect of income support matrix/paradigm is that a lot of “NZ Business” is propped up by local body and or government subsidy and these concerns didn’t really pay what you would consider is a living wage to other than management – so if you take family support out of the equation a lot of these people will be screwed.
Taking family support out of the equation is what will likely happen next and the real low level of wages bites.
It is interesting that Cullen fits a demographic that would be the prime target of an Investment Advisor/Financial Services conglomerate and that Key is a former higher order boffin in a Financial Services conglomerate.
IMHO the three term Labour govt squandered its time in office and the lost opportunity will be all they will be remembered for as the coming crisis hits home very hard.
-
Islander, in reply to
The last Labour government in office (to date) sure as shit squandered any support from artists/writers/et al. Bureaucracy increased hugely, but actual monetary support for individual working artists/writers went down (and is going down further under the other bloody mob.) Helen made a big deal about being Minister of Arts but fuckall happened.
Your friendly local Kai Tahu Labour voter (who despises the Maori Party.) -
Matthew Poole, in reply to
That's the best you can come up with? No concession that Labour did a hell of a lot more for the minimum wage during their last time in charge than you gave them credit for?
Do you think that, if WFF wasn't in place, wages would've risen to keep up with the cost of living? Or maybe what you've seen about labour cost trending to the minimum wage would've happened anyway and the hundreds-of-thousands of families whose standard of living is something approximating acceptable would, instead, be scratching by from week to week, trying not to get deeper into the shit?
I know which one I think would've happened, and it doesn't make a lot of business owners look very good.
-
DexterX, in reply to
Its not what I came up with it is what happened, WFF made a lot of people welfare dependant – in my view the extent of people given support over reached the mark, people on pretty high incomes got support.
You mentioned earlier in this thread about CGT stopping speculation, I am interested in why you are against speculation – consider a builder/developer buys some sections and builds a series of spec houses and on sells them that is not a drag on the economy or the tax pay, like wise if an individual buys a house does it up sells it an buys, for themselves, a better house or a smaller house with less of a mortgage for themselves both of these scenarios have a positive effect on the economy.
It is interesting that an effect of removing depreciation on ppty has been that rental stock has become scarce and rentals have risen, ppty prices have remained static or increased. There was a front-page article in the Herald this week along these lines. It is likely that CGT will IMHO also push up rents.
I asked you a question in this thread awhile back about what you would do to grow the economy; your answer was along the lines of what you expected others should do. It is interesting to consider ones own situation and how one can work in that situation to promote a growth in the economy.
I feel one has to factor the government out of the equation, don’t rely on them and get on with what ever it is one does, do it well and make sure it works.
The last election descended into a tax cut promise contest, bearing in mind this topic is Election 2011: GO. What happens next is going to be critically important.
-
DexterX, in reply to
Yep - I agree The growth of bureaucracy was one of there main thangs - I am surprised Wellington didn't crumble and fall into the sea under the weight of it all.
-
Sacha, in reply to
both of these scenarios have a positive effect on the economy
Growing export and local businesses has a positive effect. Flasher houses are a diversion and a prime reason our private sector owes the world so much. Speculative capital flows and lax regulation encouraged leveraged gambling with something of so little real value.
-
And in irony News Te Herald asks if you know the news and starts with a minimum wage story...
-
I made a suggestion, many years ago, that at the age of 21 everybody should get a 100K grant from the government on the proviso that it is spent in this country. This would enable anyone with the skills to have a "grubstake" and either start their own business or put a deposit down for a house. This would stimulate the internal economy to the extent that we would surpass all growth estimates and therefore, boost the productive base of our economy. Yeah, a bit too radical for those that resent anyone having a fair suck of the sav.
-
DexterX, in reply to
I don't agree that "Flasher houses are a diversion and a prime reason our private sector owes the world so much."
The underlying problem was the growth of debt/credit and that was fuelled by the banking/finance sector and resulted in the sub prime situation and the GFC.
People who own/build/live in houses aren't the problem.
-
Islander, in reply to
Steve - excellent idea!
I have, several times, suggested to the powers that be that one way to help creative people do their stuff is provide them (after they have established their abilities) with the average wage - on the condition that, IF they earned a lot more, they ceased to be so supported, and paid back into a general creative pool. One little bureacrat would've been a sufficient overseer... -
Sacha, in reply to
and what do you think the credit went into? that's right, houses
-
Sacha, in reply to
One little bureacrat would've been a sufficient overseer...
One of the advantages of guaranteed minimum income - bugger all administration or auditing
-
Islander, in reply to
Sadly, 'tis so-
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
The underlying problem was the growth of debt/credit and that was fuelled by the banking/finance sector and resulted in the sub prime situation and the GFC.
People who own/build/live in houses aren't the problem.
Inside Job, anyone? It's still showing at arthouse cinemas right now, see it while it lasts.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.