Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Spring Timing

270 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 7 8 9 10 11 Newer→ Last

  • Farmer Green, in reply to Paul Williams,

    "an earlier distraction" :-)
    Still , it is very interesting, given the history of the Greeens in Tasmania. Clearly , the public has had enough.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/even_in_death_labor_and_the_greens_cant_be_split/

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 778 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    employees are lazy, good-for-nothing bludgers who want everything for nothing

    Easily circumvented by having only a part-time , casual workforce where appropriate. The hours of work are such as shall be agreed from time to time between the employer and employee.
    Either the employer or the employee can decline to offer/accept work at any time.
    It works well for many small businesses where permannent employeees would be an unreasonable burden.
    It does enable such a business to provide a return to the shareholder/owners, usually in excess of what a large corporate would provide.
    You might be surprised how many people do not want to work 9 to 5 , 5 days a week.

    " there’s a direct 1:1 relationship between money spent on staff and money not there to be spent on you."

    It makes good business sense to spend the money where it provides the best return. Surely you would do that too? Do you own a small business?

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 778 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to bmk,

    Kiwisaver was sold as you put in half, the employer puts in half and the government a bit extra

    That's how Labour set it up, yes.

    In reality it's you put in half, your employer puts in half (which he then takes back by paying you less than your co-workers who aren't enrolled) and the government a bit extra.

    And that's what Natonal changed it to. The lack of publicity about the change is due to the government's disinterest in being honest and the lack of a competent political opposition at the time.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    a direct 1:1 relationship between money spent on staff and money not there to be spent on you.

    my boat won't pay for itself you know

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Deborah, in reply to bmk,

    In reality it’s you put in half, your employer puts in half (which he then takes back by paying you less than your co-workers who aren’t enrolled) and the government a bit extra.

    If KiwiSaver was compulsory for all employees, then this problem would disappear.

    New Lynn • Since Nov 2006 • 1447 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Deborah,

    If KiwiSaver was compulsory for all employees

    Australian heresy :)

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • bmk, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    Their information is incorrect. You can always use your KS for a first-house deposit, up to a cap of not being allowed to take out the government's contributions.

    That's good to know - they must have misunderstood.

    Since Jun 2010 • 327 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Farmer Green,

    It makes good business sense to spend the money where it provides the best return.

    But what’s good for the business is not necessarily what’s good for the owner in the short- to medium-term (in the long term, lower staff turnover and better morale and engagement result in higher profits). Investing in staff is good for the business. A new boat for the owner is probably not good for the business in any term.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • bmk, in reply to Deborah,

    If KiwiSaver was compulsory for all employees, then this problem would disappear.

    True. I do think it needs an all or nothing approach. Compulsory Kiwisaver with a corresponding cut in income tax (and waive of future claims on Super) or else simply drop Kiwisaver all together and use the money currently going in government contributions to go into the Superannuation Fund to prepare for future payments of Super.

    The current voluntary system is just a weird mess.

    Since Jun 2010 • 327 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to bmk,

    they must have misunderstood.

    Probably. The income limits apply to the kick-starter funding that may be received above what's in KS, but the KS money is yours.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • bmk, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    But what's good for the business is not necessarily what's good for the owner in the short- to medium-term. Investing in staff is good for the business. A new boat for the owner is probably not good for the business in any term.

    Exactly. I've noticed small businesses resent paying breaks and professional development while large companies support both. The reason is that large companies know it's in their best interest whereas the small business only sees the cost and not the return.

    Since Jun 2010 • 327 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to bmk,

    Yep, exactly the problem. They all insist on only hiring trained and experienced employees in the specific role they want with none of them willing to train or provide that experience.

    It's the old catch-22 - can't get a job without experience, can't get experience without a job. Even the highly-skilled candidates that recruiting agencies only want to know about had to start somewhere.

    As I've mentioned upthread, courses like Wellington Dev Academy have stepped in to address the ICT shortage, but the financial barriers to entry are very high.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5443 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    FWIW, despite an Arts degree and a Computer Science diploma, my first 3 months of employment were unpaid, the next 3 on 15k pa, the next 6 on 30k pa (which was below the median starting income for graduates). However, from there the rise was rapid, roughly 10k pa.

    I accepted unpaid because it was exactly the area I wanted to work in, and a rare one at that, so the foot in the door was vital. It was a small company starting up a new division, and they couldn't afford to hire any more people, due to one extremely well paid guy. By the end of 3 years, they'd realized I was for real, ditched the other guy (who was really just rorting them), and started expanding. But I can fully confirm that those early years had taken their toll on my sense of loyalty. I could never shake the feeling that the boss screwed me down on principle, and every step forward was going to come equally grudgingly, and by hell did I work hard those 3 years. What a massive difference it was to move into big corporate life. The old boss regularly sent me message for the next couple of years begging me to come back, offering me any money. But I was just over all the negotiations, the constant need to prove my worth in dollars to them, especially when I knew that the work I'd done had brought them back from the brink of bankruptcy.

    I wouldn't get bitter on small companies for not having the foresight to pay well, though. In hindsight, they really were that hard up. Quite a few small businesses are only a few down months from bankruptcy. There's a lot more fat in the corporate world and that translates into easier terms for employees. On the flipside, your chances of doing the work you want when slotted into a big corporate machine are less.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Phil Wallington,

    so it is not au revoir… But goodbye

    Woohoo! Double flounce, and only on page 6! Is that a record, Russ?

    #latetothepartybutIvebeenbusy

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to BenWilson,

    And sadly, the skill shortage disconnect isn't just a problem in NZ.

    The Engineer: The Skills Shortage Paradox

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5443 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    National will contrive seats for Peter Dunne and Act’s Epsom candidate David Seymour

    I really don't get why they would with Act. If Act are getting their butts kicked in Epsom, their party vote is going to fall significantly. Most of that vote will flow through to National. If Act were to get 1% with National, and National dumped them, I'd guess National would get close to half of that. Some of the rest would go to other parties, but much would just lower the total number of party votes so National gets close to half of that as well.

    Losing less than half a percent of the party vote doesn't seem such a cost to pay for clearing all the space to your right and not having your image tarnished by the pile of dung that Act has made themselves over the past few years.

    It might, however, bring back un-voters, who (unlike me) can’t really stomach environmentalism.

    I'm not even sure what that means.

    To say that we shouldn’t be so much in dairy, when dairy is what NZ does best, is very close to talking up contracting the economy and making a lot of people unemployed, well in excess of any substantiated Green jobs proposals I’ve ever seen

    You know that being good in dairy is something that we've made ourselves? It's not outside the realm of possibility that we could make ourselves good in some other things that are less environmentally harmful.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • bmk, in reply to Kyle Matthews,

    Losing less than half a percent of the party vote doesn't seem such a cost to pay for clearing all the space to your right and not having your image tarnished by the pile of dung that Act has made themselves over the past few years.

    This is true but there is a an advantage to National of having Act to the right. It allows them to push through unpopular right-wing policy saying that it is a condition of their support agreement. This allows them to do things they want to do but avoid taking the political heat for it. See charter schools and so on.

    This is quite possibly worth the associated damage to the image. Especially if they believe their won't be a second John Banks type scandal. I think a lot will come down to their faith in both David Seymour and Jaime Whyte being able to keep clean and not rock the boat.

    Since Jun 2010 • 327 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to bmk,

    Yes, and they get the half of 1%.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Labour made the mistake of proposing raising the age of super, but later (after all of them retire). That went down like a cup of cold sick, because far from solving the problem for future generations that the population bulge is going to cause, they simply upped the ante on future generations. Absolute dick move. It was a policy that no one could like.

    I liked it, though I was arguing against of lots of fellow left-wingers at the time. And superannuation is such a political bomb, raising it overnight like it's an alcohol tax would kill your party for a generation. Makes sense to give people plenty of warning and a kiwisaver scheme so that they can design their own retirement funds and have time to do so. Way not to plan for the future.

    In reality it’s you put in half, your employer puts in half (which he then takes back by paying you less than your co-workers who aren’t enrolled) and the government a bit extra.

    That's shitty. Recommend changing jobs to an employer that specifically decided not to do this, if possible.

    Also, as someone said, blame national for buggering up our retirement planning again. Both the changes to kiwisaver reduced the government contribution and increased the employer contribution that they're apparently taking out of your pay increase, and stopping payments to the Super Fund.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Kyle Matthews,

    Makes sense to give people plenty of warning and a kiwisaver scheme so that they can design their own retirement funds and have time to do so. Way not to plan for the future.

    Sort of. Except a lot of people won't have very much in their retirement funds, if they earned bugger all in their lives. At least some kind of pension seems to me a basic social need. But it could be at least a little bit means tested.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 7 8 9 10 11 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.