Posts by icehawk
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The suggestion is that the government funds the 10th day *in return for a commitment that there be no redundancies for a certain period*. So they get a one-off 10% reduction in labour costs, but then they're stuck with that cost, even if, say, their revenue falls 30%.
The more I think about this the less sense it makes. You're assuming a manufacturing business where
1) Fixed costs are not a killer.
2) You can afford to keep 90% of your workforce, short term.
3) You can't afford to keep 100% of your workforce.
4) You will, long term, be a healthy business which needs no subsidy.
5) Natural turnover rates won't winnow down your employee numbers from 100% to 90% for you.
6) The huge change in the NZD over last year isn't enough of a help.That last one's interesting: if the big change in NZD isn't helping them much then probably their primary competition is other NZ firms. In which case we're talking about subsidizing one NZ firm so that they can compete better against other NZ firms. Is that really smart?
I can imagine a manufacturing business where the subsidy would make sense - good enough to be worth saving, bad enough to need it, good enough that this would be all they need, and not in a situation where the work they lose is going to another NZ firm down the road. But I can't imagine that they're all that common.
Maybe. Maybe there's a real policy in here trying to get out. But really I think it needs a lot of careful analysisy. -
If the government's going into the business of make work schemes, surely there are endless opportunities to address actual issues that are already plaguing the country, rather than making sh*t up?
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
If they want Keynesian stimulus then they could do it. That means that the govt wants to divert a reasonable share of GDP to schemes to improve NZ's infrastructure - ideally things that pay themselves off longterm by boosting the economy then they should decide to do so and then assess projects. The whole point of Keynesian stimulus is that in depression your economy has people and resources sitting idle, and so the govt should take up that slack and employ them until things get going again - at the cost of some govt debt which you need to pay off later.
But the govt has gone into this declaring that money is tight, so they want things that give great returns for little govt cash. If that's true then they aren't really planning Keynesian stimulus because it's EXPENSIVE. So what's the damn cycleway doing here?
-
I often wonder how much of European flora and fauna are really that native either. As in, the prevalence of certain forms of life in Europe may have a lot more to do with the number of humans than the particular geographical location.
You mean the way that in England rabbits (which were imported for their fur and meat) are still slowly displacing the native hares?
-
No-one else seems to have said the obviously ultra-cynical point, so I thought I would:
A govt is elected with some of its MPs saying privately that they'd love to have some more fundamental reform of the labour market, but that they can't do that because you have to "swallow a few dead rats" to get elected. Four months later they look at the economic news and hold an "emergency job summit" to decide what to do about the labour market. It's a complicated talk-fest with lots and lots of different ideas presented that the govt promises to go away and consider carefully.
What do you think happens next?
-
"Keith, is there been any comments from the PM about the role of innovation, entrepreneurship and R&D at the job summit?"
I'm sure the PM will talk about how important innovation, entrepreneurship and R&D are. So what? He has talked that way before. He just has never match his govt's actions to his fine words in any meaningful way.
I'm an IT entrepreneur: I (and others) own one of those little (but growing!) export-focussed R&D companies. The National govt's biggest change to business taxes so far was to get rid of the R&D tax credits, thus increasing significantly the amount of tax paid by innovative R&D companies and scaring off venture capital from small IT entrepreneurs. We aren't farmers or big foreign-owned companies, so we don't get much respect from this govt. Given what I've seen so far I'd be gobsmacked if this govt now started taking us guys seriously now given how badly they've treated us so far.
-
Keith: "3,700 jobs isn't something to be pooh-poohed at."
3700 jobs at $2.50 an hour *is* something to be pooh-poohed at. If you want to have a real effect, you've got to spend real money.
The true question is: will the govt spend a significant % of GDP on economic stimulus. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of combatting a depression by use of massive govt projects that create jobs building long-term infrastructure. But if so it's going to cost real money: a significant % of GDP. If they are willing to, then they can select projects on basis of best long-term benefits (and a cycleway might make the list).
But starting with someone's hobby project at this talkfest isn't policy-making - it's populist carnival politicking. You're not at a policy conference. You're at a show.
-
"To defend Allan Peachey and the select committee, I have heard hints that they are interested in working on some of these issues, and hearing from parents and professionals."
I think you're trying to defend the indefensible.
First they pass the legislation *under*urgency*, then they ax the pay equity work for special needs teachers and THEN you hear "hints" that they are "interested in hearing" from parents and professionals.
Like in the old joke about the Viking: "What you mean pillage BEFORE we burn?" - sometimes the order you do things in really matters. Consult first and then act. And there are mechanisms in place for this - for example, committee stages in parliament - which National is working very hard to avoid.
"Act MP Heather Roy has been allocated Assoc Min responsibilities for special education"
I wonder whether she'll learn from that. Free markets (and "fake markets" such as voucher systems) work best in situations in which everyone has equal opportunity. In the case of kids with special needs it's obvious (surely obvious even to Roy) that you don't have equality of opportunity. It may force her to confront the limitations of the "fake market" model.
-
Alastair's big bit of cost-cutting was to move to reduce his rent.
Our small business has been handed a rent increase - again, like last year. A year ago we probably would have griped and swallowed it. Now we're looking at office space elsewhere, and so are a few of the other small companies in our building.
I think some landlords see that they won't be making capital gains, and are looking raise rent to try and make the returns they'd been hoping for. That's a mistake, given what the recession will do for demand for office space: because "recession" and "vacant office space" go together like ham and cheese.
My advice to small businesses: consider if you can push back on rent increases, or consider moving. Moving is expensive (in all sorts of ways), but do check your option. I have sympathy for those who invested in commercial real estate at the height of a property boom: but us small businesses ain't gonna pay for your mistakes.
-
Hmm.
Has any analysis been done on just how many people would have been affected by this in the last few years? Does anyone have a link to such analysis?
I realise an injustice is an injustice whether it's committed on one person or on three hundred. But I do wonder whether this is a bill that will have much effect or just a propaganda piece.
-
Nevertheless, romance reading still comes with a high degree of stigma attached.
Of course, back when we were teenages science fiction reading did too. It was a slightly wierd geeky thing that the wierd geeks read.
I'm still coming to terms with the fact that spending lots of time on the computer, reading sci fi, and bonking people that you mostly romanced over a computer network, are now mainstream.