PDA

View Full Version : Labour / NZ First Government



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 [28]

jonu
25-10-2020, 07:23 AM
Balance is talking about predatory capitalism and he loves it. He is encouraging others to join in and get more than your share. Exploiting others including the taxpayer is something to be proud of. If you can rip someone off you'd be a fool not to do it, is the attitude. Honesty, integrity, ethics is sadly lacking in the business world today. Greed is good. Money is power.

http://regnet.anu.edu.au/news-events/events/7326/predatory-capitalism-and-disrupted-institutions
Predatory capitalism refers to cultural acceptance of domination and exploitation as normal economic practice. Examples include not only corporate and financial fraud and political corruption that goes unchallenged, but also the undermining of trade unions, the suppression of wages, the promulgation of economic slavery, and wealth creation through imposing debt on vulnerable entities.
Less well scrutinized is how predatory capitalism has disrupted non-economic institutions, particularly cultural, social and democratic institutions.

I would have thought "Predatory Capitalism" is better described as "Unfettered".

One could exchange Predatory Capitalism for Cultural Marxism in much of the definition above.

iceman
25-10-2020, 07:30 AM
One prediction, I believe is quite possible, is that Jacinda Ardern will not serve out the next three years as Leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister. I believe that she will stand down toward the end of 2022

I am of the same view

artemis
25-10-2020, 07:43 AM
I would have thought "Predatory Capitalism" is better described as "Unfettered".

One could exchange Predatory Capitalism for Cultural Marxism in much of the definition above.

I have relations who describe themselves as socialists. I have to zip the lip not to point out that their lifestyle is well at the capitalist end of the spectrum.

jonu
25-10-2020, 08:22 AM
I have relations who describe themselves as socialists. I have to zip the lip not to point out that their lifestyle is well at the capitalist end of the spectrum.

Call out hypocrisy where you see it artemis. I decided to among family members a while ago (as gently as possible). I decided if I was to feel comfortable in a family setting I shouldn't bite my lip while others trod all over my sensibilities. Obviously has to be done with tact, but you have to make a stand sometimes....even with friends and family members.

fungus pudding
25-10-2020, 08:32 AM
Call out hypocrisy where you see it artemis. I decided to among family members a while ago (as gently as possible). I decided if I was to feel comfortable in a family setting I shouldn't bite my lip while others trod all over my sensibilities. Obviously has to be done with tact, but you have to make a stand sometimes....even with friends and family members.

So where do you live now?

justakiwi
25-10-2020, 08:36 AM
I think perhaps I know Moka somewhat better than you do. If you seriously believe moka’s comments and motivation for sharing information, is because moka is envious - you are so off base its laughable. The same applies to me. Compared to many of you, I pretty much have nothing in terms of financial or other assets. I don’t have an economics or accounting degree, or any other degree for that matter. I am however, educated and reasonably intelligent. I have chosen to live a minimalist lifestyle in my caravan because that is the life I want to lead. I have never been materialistic. Up until recently Money has simply been a necessary evil. In actual fact, it still is. I got back into investing not because I have an overwhelming desire to “make money” but purely as a way to build myself a little more financial security for retirement. My life isn’t perfect but I am so much happier and more content living in my caravan and working part time in my caregiving role. Money is not my life and my life is not about material possessions. Not having “stuff” has given me more freedom than you would ever comprehend. I am not in any way envious of you or anyone in your position. The exact opposite actually. I can’t think of anything worse.

You know nothing about moka. Your comments are nothing more than incorrect assumptions.


You have a sad attitude. There is no need to envy success. It should inspire you, but appears to make you envious. I've been hovering around the business world for decades and have rarely encountered this lack of honesty, ethics and integrity that you speak of. On the contrary, I have found those who have attained success, either through self employment, or have climbed high on someone else's ladder to generally be helpful with a joyful spirit. Of course there are exceptions, but they're not common in my experience. You reek of the green eyed monster.

jonu
25-10-2020, 08:48 AM
So where do you live now?

I say it with lurve FP...I say it with lurve! Makes for some intense discussions, but if you can't be straight up with family and friends, then when can you?

Balance
25-10-2020, 09:39 AM
If Labour promise to rein in house prices this term, they're on a hiding to nowhere. Given the current set of circumstances, I can't see any effective way of leveling off prices within the next 3 years.

The housing crisis which Cindy pledged to tackle and overcome has become a housing chaos (thanks to her government's total incompetence).

In the next three years, housing will become a total disaster - house prices are currently going up by $10,000 a month in Auckland! Try saving that kind of money even if you are earning $180k a year!

But you can be sure that ever more money by the billions of dollars will be thrown at the problem without Cindy having a clue how to solve the problem - because she is USELESS - all talk and no solution or delivery.

The billions of dollars of borrowed money will be her legacy - a burden to be borne by future generations.

The total disaster is NOT going to stop the multitude of consultants making hundreds of millions of dollars in fees, and definitely not going to stop property speculators and developers making billions of dollars - ENJOY!

Just make sure you get more than your share to protect your future generations - because the government will be incapable of looking after them.

I ❤️ It!

artemis
25-10-2020, 10:07 AM
Call out hypocrisy where you see it artemis. I decided to among family members a while ago (as gently as possible). I decided if I was to feel comfortable in a family setting I shouldn't bite my lip while others trod all over my sensibilities. Obviously has to be done with tact, but you have to make a stand sometimes....even with friends and family members.

Depends on the family. Some just want to get in an argument. Not interested sorry, not sorry.There are ways other than words. I find a very small smile and no engagement with words works well enough.

RupertBear
25-10-2020, 10:18 AM
Balance is talking about predatory capitalism and he loves it. He is encouraging others to join in and get more than your share. Exploiting others including the taxpayer is something to be proud of. If you can rip someone off you'd be a fool not to do it, is the attitude. Honesty, integrity, ethics is sadly lacking in the business world today. Greed is good. Money is power.

http://regnet.anu.edu.au/news-events/events/7326/predatory-capitalism-and-disrupted-institutions
Predatory capitalism refers to cultural acceptance of domination and exploitation as normal economic practice. Examples include not only corporate and financial fraud and political corruption that goes unchallenged, but also the undermining of trade unions, the suppression of wages, the promulgation of economic slavery, and wealth creation through imposing debt on vulnerable entities.
Less well scrutinized is how predatory capitalism has disrupted non-economic institutions, particularly cultural, social and democratic institutions.


Interesting post thanks Moka. I am not familiar with the term predatory capitalism and will do some research into it.

I find the sentiment that we should try and get more than our fair share quite distasteful and the word exploitation also came to mind. They say people are motivated by either need or greed and greed was the other word that came to mind reading that post. But that is clearly how some people choose to live their lives. My upbringing and values are quite different so that is not how I choose to live my life.

RupertBear
25-10-2020, 10:25 AM
You have a sad attitude. There is no need to envy success. It should inspire you, but appears to make you envious. I've been hovering around the business world for decades and have rarely encountered this lack of honesty, ethics and integrity that you speak of. On the contrary, I have found those who have attained success, either through self employment, or have climbed high on someone else's ladder to generally be helpful with a joyful spirit. Of course there are exceptions, but they're not common in my experience. You reek of the green eyed monster.

I dont agree that Moka has a sad attitude and reeks of the green eyed monster fungus. I think Moka was simply pointing out that striving to attain more than your fair share and encouraging others to do so as well was exploitative. I did not detect any envy in Moka’s post quite the contrary I have always found Mokas post to have a strong academic slant usually backed up with references and links to supporting articles.

RupertBear
25-10-2020, 10:28 AM
I think perhaps I know Moka somewhat better than you do. If you seriously believe moka’s comments and motivation for sharing information, is because moka is envious - you are so off base its laughable. The same applies to me. Compared to many of you, I pretty much have nothing in terms of financial or other assets. I don’t have an economics or accounting degree, or any other degree for that matter. I am however, educated and reasonably intelligent. I have chosen to live a minimalist lifestyle in my caravan because that is the life I want to lead. I have never been materialistic. Up until recently Money has simply been a necessary evil. In actual fact, it still is. I got back into investing not because I have an overwhelming desire to “make money” but purely as a way to build myself a little more financial security for retirement. My life isn’t perfect but I am so much happier and more content living in my caravan and working part time in my caregiving role. Money is not my life and my life is not about material possessions. Not having “stuff” has given me more freedom than you would ever comprehend. I am not in any way envious of you or anyone in your position. The exact opposite actually. I can’t think of anything worse.

You know nothing about moka. Your comments are nothing more than incorrect assumptions.

Thanks for posting Justakiwi. I value hearing your perspective :)

fungus pudding
25-10-2020, 10:35 AM
I say it with lurve FP...I say it with lurve! Makes for some intense discussions, but if you can't be straight up with family and friends, then when can you?

:t_up::t_up::t_up::t_up::t_up::t_up::t_up:

Balance
25-10-2020, 10:49 AM
Interesting post thanks Moka. I am not familiar with the term predatory capitalism and will do some research into it.

I find the sentiment that we should try and get more than our fair share quite distasteful and the word exploitation also came to mind. They say people are motivated by either need or greed and greed was the other word that came to mind reading that post. But that is clearly how some people choose to live their lives. My upbringing and values are quite different so that is not how I choose to live my life.

Tell that to the Cindy & the dozens of highly paid consultants (including ex Labour ministers & MPs) contracted by Cindy to prepare hundreds of reports on all manner of matters, simply to kick the bucket down the road - tens of millions of dollars of fees. They are getting more than their fair share out of the government's spending but whose fault is it?

Tell that to Andrew Little & the Pike River Recovery team - spending an ever increasing amount to 'bring the boys back' and after blowing out the budget by tens of millions of dollars, have bugger all to show. They are getting more than their fair share of the government's wasteful spending but who is to blame?

Tell that to James Shaw & the Green School who received $12m when other schools are crying out for $100k to fix old classrooms. They are getting more than their fair share but who is to blame?

Thing is, RupertBear - you & the likes of Moka & justakiwi seem to have no appreciation of just how wasteful Cindy has been with her frivolous & ineffectual spending but bugger all accountability - but you are very quick to condemn those who play to the government's rules and benefit from the rules.

The hypocrisy of your farcical one-eyed opinions is one reason why things are going to get a whole heap worse - housing being a prime example.

Anyway, such is society and that's why the housing crisis is now a housing chaos to become a total disaster within the next 3 years.

ENJOY!

Balance
25-10-2020, 10:56 AM
Balance is talking about predatory capitalism and he loves it. He is encouraging others to join in and get more than your share. Exploiting others including the taxpayer is something to be proud of. If you can rip someone off you'd be a fool not to do it, is the attitude. Honesty, integrity, ethics is sadly lacking in the business world today. Greed is good. Money is power.

http://regnet.anu.edu.au/news-events/events/7326/predatory-capitalism-and-disrupted-institutions
Predatory capitalism refers to cultural acceptance of domination and exploitation as normal economic practice. Examples include not only corporate and financial fraud and political corruption that goes unchallenged, but also the undermining of trade unions, the suppression of wages, the promulgation of economic slavery, and wealth creation through imposing debt on vulnerable entities.
Less well scrutinized is how predatory capitalism has disrupted non-economic institutions, particularly cultural, social and democratic institutions.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/123134510/cocacola-mcdonalds-asahi-and-tesla--international-giants-hold-on-to-covid19-wage-subsidies

Moka would of course describe these companies receiving tens of millions of wage subsidies as predatory capitalists - McDonalds, Coca-Cola, The Warehouse etc etc.

Government made the rules (loose and fancy free) and these companies followed the rules, qualified for the wage subsidies and now, they are being pilloried publicly for taking care of their businesses & staff.

RupertBear
25-10-2020, 12:23 PM
Tell that to the Cindy & the dozens of highly paid consultants (including ex Labour ministers & MPs) contracted by Cindy to prepare hundreds of reports on all manner of matters, simply to kick the bucket down the road - tens of millions of dollars of fees. They are getting more than their fair share out of the government's spending but whose fault is it?

Tell that to Andrew Little & the Pike River Recovery team - spending an ever increasing amount to 'bring the boys back' and after blowing out the budget by tens of millions of dollars, have bugger all to show. They are getting more than their fair share of the government's wasteful spending but who is to blame?

Tell that to James Shaw & the Green School who received $12m when other schools are crying out for $100k to fix old classrooms. They are getting more than their fair share but who is to blame?

Thing is, RupertBear - you & the likes of Moka & justakiwi seem to have no appreciation of just how wasteful Cindy has been with her frivolous & ineffectual spending but bugger all accountability - but you are very quick to condemn those who play to the government's rules and benefit from the rules.

The hypocrisy of your farcical one-eyed opinions is one reason why things are going to get a whole heap worse - housing being a prime example.

Anyway, such is society and that's why the housing crisis is now a housing chaos to become a total disaster within the next 3 years.

ENJOY!

I am not being farcical nor am I a hypocrite Balance. The world you describe is just not my world and not my experience of life. I am not a business person. I dont condemn those who play by the rules and are rewarded for doing so. I do however condemn the attitude that it is ok exploit the rules to obtain more than your fair share, I find that a distasteful concept and its not something I would choose to do. But you come from a different perspective to me and if your conscience allows you to take advantage of the rules and the rules allow you to do so so be it.

Balance
25-10-2020, 12:26 PM
I am not being farcical nor am I a hypocrite Balance. The world you describe is just not my world and not my experience of life. I am not a business person. I dont condemn those who play by the rules and are rewarded for doing so. I do however condemn the attitude that it is ok exploit the rules to obtain more than your fair share, I find that a distasteful concept and its not something I would choose to do. But you come from a different perspective to me and if your conscience allows you to take advantage of the rules and the rules allow you to do so so be it.

Fair enough.

How about James Shaw & the Green School then?

blackcap
25-10-2020, 12:27 PM
I am not being farcical nor am I a hypocrite Balance. The world you describe is just not my world and not my experience of life. I am not a business person. I dont condemn those who play by the rules and are rewarded for doing so. I do however condemn the attitude that it is ok exploit the rules to obtain more than your fair share, I find that a distasteful concept and its not something I would choose to do. But you come from a different perspective to me and if your conscience allows you to take advantage of the rules and the rules allow you to do so so be it.

The reason we have rules is exactly because eveyone's idea of fair differs. Therefore the easiest solution is to play by the rules. If you do not like the rules, change the rules.

RupertBear
25-10-2020, 12:40 PM
Fair enough.

How about James Shaw & the Green School then?

I agree with you that did not impress me

RupertBear
25-10-2020, 12:53 PM
[/B]

I agree with you that did not impress me

Thats twice in a week now Balance :eek2: and it needs to stop :D

Balance
25-10-2020, 01:15 PM
Thats twice in a week now Balance :eek2: and it needs to stop :D

Bet you feel good for being the bigger & better person for doing so?

As you should be. 👍

Suitably chastised, I am . 🥴

moka
25-10-2020, 10:51 PM
You have a sad attitude. There is no need to envy success. It should inspire you, but appears to make you envious. I've been hovering around the business world for decades and have rarely encountered this lack of honesty, ethics and integrity that you speak of. On the contrary, I have found those who have attained success, either through self employment, or have climbed high on someone else's ladder to generally be helpful with a joyful spirit. Of course there are exceptions, but they're not common in my experience. You reek of the green eyed monster.I don’t envy success if it deserved, and I see people who work hard who do deserve success.
I am talking about predatory capital and an obvious example was finance companies around GFC.

You are assuming that my attitude is envy, and it is not envy I feel when I look at homelessness and child poverty with the rich getting richer and the poor poorer. I am talking about the big picture with increasing inequality because of neoliberalism and freemarket policies which transfer wealth from the have-nots to the haves.

The free-market economy assumes trickledown economics works when it does not.
The extreme wealthy can actually resource and fund themselves to avoid paying things like fair tax, whilst 75 percent of New Zealand's economy - small business - they are actually paying tax.
It's not fair if multinationals and the extreme wealthy around the world are not paying their fair share of tax.

moka
25-10-2020, 11:18 PM
There are rules, set by those actually in power. If people and organisations stay within those rules how is that predatory? Individuals and business owners have always, and will always, look out for their households and stakeholders. If they stray outside the rules there are consequences.

Households and business owners might be well off or they might not. But to suggest they should not act within the rules and in their own interests because that is lacking honesty, integrity and ethics? Really?
It is predatory because there is a power imbalance between capital and labour and the rules to protect both workers and consumers have been weakened by neoliberalism through the mantra of less government and less regulation.

People interpret the rules to suit themselves e.g. employers with the wage subsidy. The Council of Trade Unions received a staggering 2100 complaints by 17 April 2020, with people often being forced to take annual leave, redundancies being progressed improperly, so proper consultation not happening, and health and safety concerns.

Wage subsidy complaints soar, including employer fraud - Labour Inspectorate
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414453/wage-subsidy-complaints-soar-including-employer-fraud-labour-inspectorate
(https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414453/wage-subsidy-complaints-soar-including-employer-fraud-labour-inspectorate)
A lot of the time there are not consequences if people stray outside the rules. Certainly with white collar crime you aren’t as likely to be prosecuted as someone who is not in a trusted position and steals money. Often fraudsters are asked to leave with their reputation intact, and their next employer is unaware of their history. Being tough on crime for the National Party meant targeting gangs not corporate crime.

There is a double standard in attitudes to tax avoidance and benefit manipulation: while around half or more regard both as wrong, benefit recipients are judged more harshly than tax offenders for what might be considered similar ‘offences’. People are often judged more on who they are than their behaviour.

artemis
26-10-2020, 05:28 AM
It is predatory because there is a power imbalance between capital and labour and the rules to protect both workers and consumers have been weakened by neoliberalism through the mantra of less government and less regulation.....

There have been changes in the last three years, and more promised for the next three. Let's see how they work out.

As an example, we have already seen some results of government dealing to the 'power imbalance' between tenants and landlords. It has actually been pretty good for landlords, tenants not so much.

Some asset owners will take their ball and go home. Others will adjust their processes and investment to minimise cost and risk. WHS being just one recent example, in the news because of scale. But not the only one. And most asset owners are not required to tell the market, they just quietly do what they do.

There is a quiet revolution based on automated systems, AI and robotics. It has been going on for decades and ain't stopping any time soon.

I watched a vid recently about an automated picking system in the US - taking goods from warehouse shelves and funnelling them to packers for shipping. It is designed for smaller enterprises, takes just days to get up and running for that part of the order and ship process. Not talking scale of Amazon or Ocado here but with online shipping and dark distribution centres increasing, there is a market here for sure. Low wage jobs gone.

jonu
26-10-2020, 07:59 AM
The free-market economy assumes trickledown economics works when it does not.
The extreme wealthy can actually resource and fund themselves to avoid paying things like fair tax, whilst 75 percent of New Zealand's economy - small business - they are actually paying tax.
It's not fair if multinationals and the extreme wealthy around the world are not paying their fair share of tax.

It depends on your definition of "works".

Trickledown works in an overall sense. The human race has never enjoyed such a high standard of living and life expectancy. In fact in first world countries this has resulted in a number of self inflicted health problems around dietary choices etc (I realise that invites another discussion).

What Trickledown doesn't do is diminish the "gap" between rich and poor, in fact it can exacerbate it. That is where the tension arises. I'm not saying it is fair, but it is more nuanced than just saying it doesn't work.

Balance
26-10-2020, 08:33 AM
It depends on your definition of "works".

Trickledown works in an overall sense. The human race has never enjoyed such a high standard of living and life expectancy. In fact in first world countries this has resulted in a number of self inflicted health problems around dietary choices etc (I realise that invites another discussion).

What Trickledown doesn't do is diminish the "gap" between rich and poor, in fact it can exacerbate it. That is where the tension arises. I'm not saying it is fair, but it is more nuanced than just saying it doesn't work.

China and other once upon a time third world countries like Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and Japan (totally devastated after WW2) are proof that trickledown economics work - as long as the people are prepared to work hard and be self reliant.

Compare and contrast with NZ today where handouts are more attractive than working on a farm - you have your answer why the wealth gap in NZ will never close.

Balance
26-10-2020, 08:39 AM
It is predatory because there is a power imbalance between capital and labour and the rules to protect both workers and consumers have been weakened by neoliberalism through the mantra of less government and less regulation.

People interpret the rules to suit themselves e.g. employers with the wage subsidy. The Council of Trade Unions received a staggering 2100 complaints by 17 April 2020, with people often being forced to take annual leave, redundancies being progressed improperly, so proper consultation not happening, and health and safety concerns.

Wage subsidy complaints soar, including employer fraud - Labour Inspectorate
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414453/wage-subsidy-complaints-soar-including-employer-fraud-labour-inspectorate
(https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414453/wage-subsidy-complaints-soar-including-employer-fraud-labour-inspectorate)


https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2020/10/coronavirus-few-employers-found-to-have-abused-wage-subsidy-scheme.amp.html

And the result is that few employers and businesses were found to have abused the wage subsidy scheme when the complaints were investigated.

justakiwi
26-10-2020, 08:45 AM
You are seriously going to use China as a “good” example? Yes, the Chinese are incredibly hard working people but the gap between wealthy and poor is huge. China’s poor, see no benefit whatsoever form your trickle down economy. The same applies to Japan and probably to the other countries you have mentioned.


China and other once upon a time third world countries like Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and Japan (totally devastated after WW2) are proof that trickledown economics work - as long as the people are prepared to work hard and be self reliant.

Compare and contrast with NZ today where handouts are more attractive than working on a farm - you have your answer why the wealth gap in NZ will never close.

fungus pudding
26-10-2020, 08:47 AM
It depends on your definition of "works".

Trickledown works in an overall sense. The human race has never enjoyed such a high standard of living and life expectancy. In fact in first world countries this has resulted in a number of self inflicted health problems around dietary choices etc (I realise that invites another discussion).

What Trickledown doesn't do is diminish the "gap" between rich and poor, in fact it can exacerbate it. That is where the tension arises. I'm not saying it is fair, but it is more nuanced than just saying it doesn't work.

Trickle down: That is the only way money can travel, so that's what it does. As living standards rise throughout the world, which they are doing, the gap grows. It shouldn't matter as long as the poor are getting richer, which they are. Clobbering 'the rich' will always have consequences on the poor, generally reducing their living standard. Strangely enough various studies have shown people generally accept poverty well as long as others aren't seen to be better off. Envy is a strange animal.

Balance
26-10-2020, 09:07 AM
You are seriously going to use China as a “good” example? Yes, the Chinese are incredibly hard working people but the gap between wealthy and poor is huge. China’s poor, see no benefit whatsoever form your trickle down economy. The same applies to Japan and probably to the other countries you have mentioned.

Open your eyes and ears, justakiwi and review the China situation from the perspective of the Chinese, not the biased Western commentaries which cannot rise above the West vs Communism narrative.

You are right about the wealth gap in China where there are some very very wealthy individuals (sounds similar to the US, UK and NZ, right?) but never in the history of mankind have so many people been lifted out of abject poverty and basic existence as in China over the last 30 years.

https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/china-lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-is-historic-world-bank-117101300027_1.html

But don't take my word for it, have a read of the article above.

Several of my business contacts are from China and they have nothing but praise for the way that their leaders have lifted their country out of the miserable state China was right until the 1990s.

Meanwhile, in NZ we have gone from first world during the 1950s to the 1970s to school children needing to be provided with lunches these days so they do not go hungry & can focus on their studies - what happened? What an absolute disgrace!

justakiwi
26-10-2020, 09:48 AM
Open your eyes and ears, justakiwi and review the China situation from the perspective of the Chinese, not the biased Western commentaries which cannot rise above the West vs Communism narrative.

You need to stop presuming you know what or how I think. Contrary to what you seem to believe, I am perfectly capable of forming my own opinions and views on things, based on my own research and learning. I am not the blind, brainwashed puppet, you continually accuse me of being. You need to stop treating women as gullible, brainless twits incapable of an original thought, because we are not.


You are right about the wealth gap in China where there are some very very wealthy individuals (sounds similar to the US, UK and NZ, right?) but never in the history of mankind have so many people been lifted out of abject poverty and basic existence as in China over the last 30 years.

https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/china-lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-is-historic-world-bank-117101300027_1.html

But don't take my word for it, have a read of the article above.

Several of my business contacts are from China and they have nothing but praise for the way that their leaders have lifted their country out of the miserable state China was right until the 1990s.

I am not disputing the fact that things have improved in China. But there are still millions of people living in abject poverty, which is a fact you shouldn’t ignore.


Meanwhile, in NZ we have gone from first world during the 1950s to the 1970s to school children needing to be provided with lunches these days so they do not go hungry & can focus on their studies - what happened? What an absolute disgrace!

We are a country of three little islands located far away from the rest of the world. As a result, our every day costs are significantly higher than most countries. Our cost of living is, and always has been, high. No government has ever managed to solve this problem, or the problems of poverty. Least of all National. I have never said that things are perfect in NZ. We have significant area of major concern such as the high rate of domestic violence and associated child abuse/neglect. And before you respond with more beneficiary bashing, domestic violence and child abuse/neglect occurs in families from all walks of life. As someone who worked for 8 years in an admin role for what was then CYF, I can tell you this for a fact. You would probably be shocked to know just how many families we “worked with” were not in the beneficiary/low income category. I worked there under both National and Labour governments and neither party ever managed to solve the multitude of problems we were dealing with. You have no idea.

Balance, you make some comments in your posts that I don’t disagree with. But you rarely contribute any concrete solutions to the issues you are angry about. Take housing for example. We know what you think about KiwiBuild, so no need to repeat it, but what is your solution to the housing problem? If you were PM what would you do to solve it? I have my own ideas about how to solve some of this, but it’s an “outside the square” idea, that very few people would take seriously, let alone implement. Regardless of which government is in power, I think the time has come to move on from traditional ways of resolving issues like housing. We need to get creative, seriously look at what is actually needed, and be prepared to do something entirely different. We can’t just keep doing the same old same old and hope that it fixes things. The world is changing. NZ is changing.

I don’t have all the answers, but neither do you.

Balance
26-10-2020, 11:12 AM
You need to stop presuming you know what or how I think. Contrary to what you seem to believe, I am perfectly capable of forming my own opinions and views on things, based on my own research and learning. I am not the blind, brainwashed puppet, you continually accuse me of being. You need to stop treating women as gullible, brainless twits incapable of an original thought, because we are not.



I am not disputing the fact that things have improved in China. But there are still millions of people living in abject poverty, which is a fact you shouldn’t ignore.




1. You are making a huge assumption yourself about how some of us view Cindy as indicative of how we view women as a whole.

We view Cindy for who she is - all style and no substance (all talk and no delivery) and that does not mean that we view women all the same way. Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Angela Merkel, Tsai Ing-wen and Margaret Thatcher are but some examples of real leaders who are/were all substance rather than style. Take a step back and differentiate between real leaders and popular leaders - Chavez was hell of a popular and he completely ruined a wealthy country with his populist policies.

2. China lifted 800m (yes, 87% of its population - source World Bank) out of poverty in less than 30 years and you are still busy trying to downplay that astounding achievement by looking at the wealth gap - which actually is smaller than that of the US or NZ! Sure there are millions there still living in abject poverty but nothing compared to what it was like 30 years ago. Look at the beam in NZ's eyes before you look at the speck in the eyes of others.

blackcap
26-10-2020, 11:25 AM
2. China lifted 800m (yes, 87% of its population - source World Bank) out of poverty in less than 30 years and you are still busy trying to downplay that astounding achievement by looking at the wealth gap - which actually is smaller than that of the US or NZ! Sure there are millions there still living in abject poverty but nothing compared to what it was like 30 years ago. Look at the beam in NZ's eyes before you look at the speck in the eyes of others.

Thanks to that evil capitalism, globally 2 Billion people have been lifted out of poverty the last 30 years. Why are we even talking about inequality in that context.

Balance
26-10-2020, 11:43 AM
Thanks to that evil capitalism, globally 2 Billion people have been lifted out of poverty the last 30 years. Why are we even talking about inequality in that context.

The huge mistake made out there is for anyone of us to blindly buy into the US narrative that it’s all about capitalism vs communism out there.

Different countries have the right to pursue whatever mix of policies appropriate to lift their standards of living & look after their people.

China & Russia adopted Communism economic policies to the horrendous detriment of their people’s wellbeing for decades.

They saw the light and introduced free market policies (call it capitalism) and few of their citizens would complain about how that has lifted living standards for their people.

artemis
26-10-2020, 11:44 AM
..... Take housing for example. We know what you think about KiwiBuild, so no need to repeat it, but what is your solution to the housing problem? If you were PM what would you do to solve it? .....

First define the problem. No point in saying there's some sort of a problem and here's a solution. How does a government, or anyone, know they are solving the real problem? There is an answer to that question, and it is formal root cause analysis.

So, what is the 'housing problem'?

justakiwi
26-10-2020, 11:49 AM
My comment about women was nothing to do with Jacinda. I was referring to the way you speak to me, and other women in this forum.


1. You are making a huge assumption yourself about how some of us view Cindy as indicative of how we view women as a whole.

We view Cindy for who she is - all style and no substance (all talk and no delivery) and that does not mean that we view women all the same way. Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Angela Merkel, Tsai Ing-wen and Margaret Thatcher are but some examples of real leaders who are/were all substance rather than style. Take a step back and differentiate between real leaders and popular leaders - Chavez was hell of a popular and he completely ruined a wealthy country with his populist policies.

2. China lifted 800m (yes, 87% of its population - source World Bank) out of poverty in less than 30 years and you are still busy trying to downplay that astounding achievement by looking at the wealth gap - which actually is smaller than that of the US or NZ! Sure there are millions there still living in abject poverty but nothing compared to what it was like 30 years ago. Look at the beam in NZ's eyes before you look at the speck in the eyes of others.

Balance
26-10-2020, 12:05 PM
We are a country of three little islands located far away from the rest of the world. As a result, our every day costs are significantly higher than most countries. Our cost of living is, and always has been, high. No government has ever managed to solve this problem, or the problems of poverty. Least of all National. I have never said that things are perfect in NZ. We have significant area of major concern such as the high rate of domestic violence and associated child abuse/neglect. And before you respond with more beneficiary bashing, domestic violence and child abuse/neglect occurs in families from all walks of life. As someone who worked for 8 years in an admin role for what was then CYF, I can tell you this for a fact. You would probably be shocked to know just how many families we “worked with” were not in the beneficiary/low income category. I worked there under both National and Labour governments and neither party ever managed to solve the multitude of problems we were dealing with. You have no idea.



That is a cop out.

NZ used to enjoy one of the highest standard of living in the world right through the 1950s to the mid 1970s. You need to assess why NZ has gone backwards in such a big way since then to understand why school children need lunch handouts and there are homeless & beggars in the street today.

The simple answer can be provided by this question :

"How can there be tens of thousands of jobs a begging in the agricultural sector when there are several hundred thousand NZers unemployed and on the benefit?"

Balance
26-10-2020, 12:08 PM
My comment about women was nothing to do with Jacinda. I was referring to the way you speak to me, and other women in this forum.



if you have not noticed, I speak to everyone the same way.

Gets me banned once in a while - most unfairly may I add. :p

Balance
26-10-2020, 12:10 PM
Balance, you make some comments in your posts that I don’t disagree with. But you rarely contribute any concrete solutions to the issues you are angry about. Take housing for example. We know what you think about KiwiBuild, so no need to repeat it, but what is your solution to the housing problem? If you were PM what would you do to solve it? I have my own ideas about how to solve some of this, but it’s an “outside the square” idea, that very few people would take seriously, let alone implement. Regardless of which government is in power, I think the time has come to move on from traditional ways of resolving issues like housing. We need to get creative, seriously look at what is actually needed, and be prepared to do something entirely different. We can’t just keep doing the same old same old and hope that it fixes things. The world is changing. NZ is changing.

I don’t have all the answers, but neither do you.

Go back to how NZ solved the housing shortages in the 1950s and 60s to start with.

justakiwi
26-10-2020, 12:21 PM
Yes, you treat anyone who disagrees with you despicably, but whether you realise it or not, you are even more condescending and contemptuous when speaking to women. You are more than a little misogynistic and pretty arrogant. But you don’t need me to tell you that. It is your way of making you feel like a tough guy, when you’re really the opposite.

Tell me ... are you like this in “real life” or is this just a persona you have created because you get your rocks off by winding people up intentionally, just for your personal entertainment? You actually quite fascinate me to be honest. You would make interesting subject material for a psychology class.


if you have not noticed, I speak to everyone the same way.

Gets me banned once in a while - most unfairly may I add. :p

couta1
26-10-2020, 12:48 PM
The school lunch program is just a cop out, even though I grew up in poverty I still had food for lunch, parents would have been highly embarrassed to have the state providing lunch for their children when its the most basic of parental responsibility. I guess it just gives the many irresponsible parents more money for their personal vices.

Bjauck
26-10-2020, 12:52 PM
...
"How can there be tens of thousands of jobs a begging in the agricultural sector when there are several hundred thousand NZers unemployed and on the benefit?"

My answer:
NZ farm and market gardening agriculture has to an extent become reliant on foreign seasonal workers, many of whom come from poor countries.

Covid control measures have restricted the supply of seasonal cheap foreign labour. Without offering higher pay and better conditions, NZ workers are not attracted to the jobs that had appealed to the poor seasonal foreign workers.

If this situation continues:
(1) other input costs will fall e.g. Land prices.
(2) the level of unemployment benefits will need to drop if unemployment levels rise unacceptably..
(3) orchard owners will have to accept that they will have to offer higher pay levels and receive a lower rate of profit.
(4) NZ will import more produce.
(5) the consumer will pay higher prices for produce.
(6) Agricultural land will be sold and new owners may turn it over for other uses.
(7) All or a combination of the above.

fungus pudding
26-10-2020, 01:17 PM
My answer:
NZ farm and market gardening agriculture has to an extent become reliant on foreign seasonal workers, many of whom come from poor countries.

Covid control measures have restricted the supply of seasonal cheap foreign labour. Without offering higher pay and better conditions, NZ workers are not attracted to the jobs that had appealed to the poor seasonal foreign workers.

If this situation continues:
(1) other input costs will fall e.g. Land prices.
(2) the level of unemployment benefits will need to drop if unemployment levels rise unacceptably..
(3) orchard owners will have to accept that they will have to offer higher pay levels and receive a lower rate of profit.
(4) NZ will import more produce.
(5) the consumer will pay higher prices for produce.
(6) Agricultural land will be sold and new owners may turn it over for other uses.
(7) All or a combination of the above.

None of that addresses Balances' question which was
"How can there be tens of thousands of jobs a begging in the agricultural sector when there are several hundred thousand NZers unemployed and on the benefit?"

couta1
26-10-2020, 01:24 PM
None of that addresses Balances' question which was
"How can there be tens of thousands of jobs a begging in the agricultural sector when there are several hundred thousand NZers unemployed and on the benefit?" The answer is just like in the aged care sector they are in many cases simply too lazy and can't be bothered, why put in hard work when you can get paid for sitting on your arse, even when they were offering well above minimum wages for the tree planting enterprise, there were basically no locals interested.

Bjauck
26-10-2020, 01:31 PM
None of that addresses Balances' question which was
"How can there be tens of thousands of jobs a begging in the agricultural sector when there are several hundred thousand NZers unemployed and on the benefit?" Without offering higher pay and better conditions, NZ workers (including unemployed workers) are not attracted to the jobs that had appealed to the poor seasonal foreign workers.

Addition in brackets for clarity.

fungus pudding
26-10-2020, 01:45 PM
Without offering higher pay and better conditions, NZ workers (including unemployed workers) are not attracted to the jobs that had appealed to the poor seasonal foreign workers.

Addition in brackets for clarity.

Well they should get back to their nuclear physics or brain surgery then or whatever else they have spent years studying for.

justakiwi
26-10-2020, 01:48 PM
Not everyone is suited to working in aged care as you well know. It may not be seen by society as a “skilled” job, but it is a damned sight harder than the general public probably appreciates. It is physically demanding - I spend 99% of a 7.5 hour shift, on my feet. A certain amount of lifting/bending/crouching is required, even with the use of hoists/lifting belts etc. It is probably not a job for somebody with genuine physical limitations eg: back, knee, shoulder injuries/issues.

Caregivers need to be able to deal with personal cares such as toileting, showering, assisting with continence products, catheter and stoma bags, bleeding, vomiting, applying topical/internal medications to genital areas and more. It takes a special kind of person to be able to do this, not to mention provide this care in a caring, respectful, patient, tolerant, consistent way. Some people simply can’t handle it. Not everyone is cut out to be a nurse. Neither is everyone cut out to be a caregiver. It is unfair and unrealistic to expect the general population of unemployed people to simply “suck it up” and do these jobs if it’s not something they can physically or emotionally handle.

Same goes for farming. I don’t want someone who is not passionate about caregiving, working with me in our rest home, or caring for my mum in hers. Farmers don’t want someone working for them who are not passionate about farming. Dairy farming is mentioned a lot. Yes, there are a lot of jobs going, but pay rates for dairy farm workers are low. My son works as a dairy farm manager but they can’t afford to pay their staff more than the minimum wage. They also can’t always provide accommodation. Hours are long and rosters vary greatly from farm to farm. There may well be unemployed people who would do this work, but how are they supposed to move their family to a new location, find accommodation, transport, work for the partner and childcare to enable them to do it for minimum wage? It is not always as simple as it seems, believe me.


The answer is just like in the aged care sector they are in many cases simply too lazy and can't be bothered, why put in hard work when you can get paid for sitting on your arse, even when they were offering well above minimum wages for the tree planting enterprise, there were basically no locals interested.

artemis
26-10-2020, 01:58 PM
My answer:
NZ farm and market gardening agriculture has to an extent become reliant on foreign seasonal workers, many of whom come from poor countries.

Covid control measures have restricted the supply of seasonal cheap foreign labour. Without offering higher pay and better conditions, NZ workers are not attracted to the jobs that had appealed to the poor seasonal foreign workers.

If this situation continues:
(1) other input costs will fall e.g. Land prices.
(2) the level of unemployment benefits will need to drop if unemployment levels rise unacceptably..
(3) orchard owners will have to accept that they will have to offer higher pay levels and receive a lower rate of profit.
(4) NZ will import more produce.
(5) the consumer will pay higher prices for produce.
(6) Agricultural land will be sold and new owners may turn it over for other uses.
(7) All or a combination of the above.

(8) Switch to lower labour requirements. My cuz turned his dairy farm into growing spuds for a contracted client, for example. Get government funding, plant trees where the grazing or apple trees were, wait a couple of decades.
(9) Automation / robotics. Already here, quietly expanding, even being exported.

Raz
26-10-2020, 01:58 PM
Yes, you treat anyone who disagrees with you despicably, but whether you realise it or not, you are even more condescending and contemptuous when speaking to women. You are more than a little misogynistic and pretty arrogant. But you don’t need me to tell you that. It is your way of making you feel like a tough guy, when you’re really the opposite.

Tell me ... are you like this in “real life” or is this just a persona you have created because you get your rocks off by winding people up intentionally, just for your personal entertainment? You actually quite fascinate me to be honest. You would make interesting subject material for a psychology class.

Interesting angle, i recently met two people who came across this way online and I was surprised how different they were in real life, one in business and the other in social setting respectively. Certainly their bark went no further than online.

artemis
26-10-2020, 02:03 PM
The answer is just like in the aged care sector they are in many cases simply too lazy and can't be bothered, why put in hard work when you can get paid for sitting on your arse, even when they were offering well above minimum wages for the tree planting enterprise, there were basically no locals interested.

My go to question when someone tells me they can't find a job - Have you knocked on the doors of the aged care centres? Answer always - no. Pretty sure when higher rates were mandated some rest homes changed job duties for some roles to no client contact. And some closed completely as no longer financially viable.

couta1
26-10-2020, 02:04 PM
Interesting angle, i recently met two people who came across this way online and I was surprised how different they were in real life, one in business and the other in social setting respectively. Certainly their bark went no further than online. I must say all the people I've met off this forum(Probably about 20) are pretty cool sorts and often nothing like you envisaged them to be going by the forum, I'd venture to say that most who don't get on well on here would probably end up having a good laugh and drink together given the right circumstances.

Bjauck
26-10-2020, 02:18 PM
Duplicate post

Bjauck
26-10-2020, 02:22 PM
Well they should get back to their nuclear physics or brain surgery then or whatever else they have spent years studying for.


So it wasn't that that I had not answered the question posed. Is it that you did not like or agree with my answer? Which is fair enough as that is what forums are all about.

(1) So what do you think needs to happen to solve this mis-match?
(2) What do you think will happen given the current government and current covid situation?

justakiwi
26-10-2020, 02:42 PM
That is exactly how I got my caregiver job. I contacted the rest home and asked if they would be willing to train me. I told them I was happy to work for nothing - while I was training. As it turned out they were about to advertise for a casual caregiver so they took me on, and trained (and paid) me. There are plenty of unemployed people who are proactive as I was. We are not all lazy, bludgers and beneficiary bashers need to get that through their thick heads.

The only rest home roles with no client contact are generally house-keeping/laundry roles, and even those involve client interaction, so not sure what point you were making with that comment. Caregiver wages increased as they should have, but they are still not high enough for the work we do and the responsibility some of us have as supervisors in rest homes that do not have an RN on site 24/7.


My go to question when someone tells me they can't find a job - Have you knocked on the doors of the aged care centres? Answer always - no. Pretty sure when higher rates were mandated some rest homes changed job duties for some roles to no client contact. And some closed completely as no longer financially viable.

fungus pudding
26-10-2020, 02:56 PM
Not everyone is suited to working in aged care as you well know. It may not be seen by society as a “skilled” job, but it is a damned sight harder than the general public probably appreciates. It is physically demanding - I spend 99% of a 7.5 hour shift, on my feet. A certain amount of lifting/bending/crouching is required, even with the use of hoists/lifting belts etc. It is probably not a job for somebody with genuine physical limitations eg: back, knee, shoulder injuries/issues.

Caregivers need to be able to deal with personal cares such as toileting, showering, assisting with continence products, catheter and stoma bags, bleeding, vomiting, applying topical/internal medications to genital areas and more. It takes a special kind of person to be able to do this, not to mention provide this care in a caring, respectful, patient, tolerant, consistent way. Some people simply can’t handle it. Not everyone is cut out to be a nurse. Neither is everyone cut out to be a caregiver. It is unfair and unrealistic to expect the general population of unemployed people to simply “suck it up” and do these jobs if it’s not something they can physically or emotionally handle.

Same goes for farming. I don’t want someone who is not passionate about caregiving, working with me in our rest home, or caring for my mum in hers. Farmers don’t want someone working for them who are not passionate about farming. Dairy farming is mentioned a lot. Yes, there are a lot of jobs going, but pay rates for dairy farm workers are low. My son works as a dairy farm manager but they can’t afford to pay their staff more than the minimum wage. They also can’t always provide accommodation. Hours are long and rosters vary greatly from farm to farm. There may well be unemployed people who would do this work, but how are they supposed to move their family to a new location, find accommodation, transport, work for the partner and childcare to enable them to do it for minimum wage? It is not always as simple as it seems, believe me.

You'll never meet an apple that's fussy about who picks it.

fungus pudding
26-10-2020, 03:04 PM
So it wasn't that that I had not answered the question posed. Is it that you did not like or agree with my answer? Which is fair enough as that is what forums are all about.

(1) So what do you think needs to happen to solve this mis-match?
(2) What do you think will happen given the current government and current covid situation?

You made a series of statements that I did not disagree with, but you did not address the question of why some jobs are not getting filled when there are so many unemployed.

artemis
26-10-2020, 03:10 PM
....The only rest home roles with no client contact are generally house-keeping/laundry roles, and even those involve client interaction, so not sure what point you were making with that comment. Caregiver wages increased as they should have, but they are still not high enough for the work we do and the responsibility some of us have as supervisors in rest homes that do not have an RN on site 24/7.

There were a number of media reports at the time of the pay rises and since about role changes and rest homes in financial strife. Seem to recall some roles were changed from personal care to meal prep and serve, cleaning and similar.

Japan for years, and other countries more recently, has had robots carrying out a range of care functions mainly but not only for older people. If there is a supply / demand mismatch there will eventually be a break even point.

RupertBear
26-10-2020, 03:40 PM
Yes, you treat anyone who disagrees with you despicably, but whether you realise it or not, you are even more condescending and contemptuous when speaking to women. You are more than a little misogynistic and pretty arrogant. But you don’t need me to tell you that. It is your way of making you feel like a tough guy, when you’re really the opposite.

Tell me ... are you like this in “real life” or is this just a persona you have created because you get your rocks off by winding people up intentionally, just for your personal entertainment? You actually quite fascinate me to be honest. You would make interesting subject material for a psychology class.

Psychology 101 - “The Importance of having Balance in Your Life” :D

Bjauck
26-10-2020, 05:38 PM
You made a series of statements that I did not disagree with, but you did not address the question of why some jobs are not getting filled when there are so many unemployed. Incorrect. I answered by saying The jobs remain unfilled by NZ unemployed because the pay is too low, conditions too poor.

Why? In the absence of cheap foreign seasonal workers, the employers are not adjusting advertised pay higher to appeal to domestic NZ workers.

Perhaps it does not concur with any answer you have to the question posed? Maybe the skill set of the NZ unemployed makes them unsuited. Maybe they prefer to remain unemployed on the dole rather than work for the pay and under the conditions on offer?

fungus pudding
26-10-2020, 05:45 PM
Incorrect. I answered by saying The jobs remain unfilled by NZ unemployed because the pay is too low, conditions too poor.

Why? In the absence of cheap foreign seasonal workers, the employers are not adjusting advertised pay higher to appeal to domestic NZ workers.

Perhaps it does not concur with any answer you have to the question posed?

How much over the minimum wage should they offer, given the number available to work? How much more will consumers pay to eat fruit? The problem is - the growers have to compete with the dole.

justakiwi
26-10-2020, 05:50 PM
No, but you’ll meet plenty of orchard owners who are. Fruit picking is also not as simple as you would like to make out. Again, it is physically demanding with long hours, on your feet or up a ladder all day. My previous comments about farming and caregiving apply equally to orchard work. Yes, there will be some unemployed people who are able and capable to do it, but there will be some who are not. Try getting up and down a ladder a zillion times a day if you have a dicky knee. You have to remember that not everyone who is unemployed is in their 20s or 30s. Many are my age, and I can tell you now, I couldn’t pick fruit all day. The job I have is physically challenging enough at the age of 60.

It is not always about laziness and unwillingness to work. That is the point I am trying to get you to understand.


You'll never meet an apple that's fussy about who picks it.

justakiwi
26-10-2020, 05:57 PM
The vast majority of fruit is exported and the consumer will pay for it. As far as I am concerned every person working in this country should be paid a living wage. Currently that is considered to be $22.10/hour. Pay people what they damned well need to live on and support their families and you will find people are much more willing to take up a job that might be inconvenient/not ideal, than they would at the minimum wage.

Employers need to get with the programme and treat employees as a valuable asset. We all know full well that many big companies in particular are making ****loads of profit every year. They can afford to treat their workers better than the currently do. For the smaller businesses who can’t I have no problem with the government topping their wages up to the living wage.


How much over the minimum wage should they offer, given the number available to work? How much more will consumers pay to eat fruit? The problem is - the growers have to compete with the dole.

Bjauck
26-10-2020, 06:02 PM
How much over the minimum wage should they offer, given the number available to work? How much more will consumers pay to eat fruit? The problem is - the growers have to compete with the dole.
Exactly. Where will the new post-COVID equilibrium settle if you take foreign migrant workers out of the mix. Post COVID, will there be Higher or lower wage rates, greater or reduced social welfare, lower or higher agricultural land prices, lower or higher profits? Will wealth and income become more or less divergent?

blackcap
26-10-2020, 06:03 PM
The vast majority of fruit is exported and the consumer will pay for it. As far as I am concerned every person working in this country should be paid a living wage. Currently that is considered to be $22.10/hour. .

You do realise that that is a whole lot of nonsense. It may be $22.10 per hour in some places, but if you want to be equitable you really have to adjust it for regional differences and costs. I would wager that a wage of $15 per hour is better for a person living in Southland than a $25 per hour wage for someone living in Auckland. But this whole "living wage" movement is BS predicated on nothing. If you do bring in a "Living wage", all it will do is raise all other wages relative, costs will increase, and no one will be better off. It will also just expedite the automation of low skilled jobs such that they rapidly disappear.

fungus pudding
26-10-2020, 06:26 PM
No, but you’ll meet plenty of orchard owners who are. Fruit picking is also not as simple as you would like to make out. Again, it is physically demanding with long hours, on your feet or up a ladder all day. My previous comments about farming and caregiving apply equally to orchard work. Yes, there will be some unemployed people who are able and capable to do it, but there will be some who are not. Try getting up and down a ladder a zillion times a day if you have a dicky knee. You have to remember that not everyone who is unemployed is in their 20s or 30s. Many are my age, and I can tell you now, I couldn’t pick fruit all day. The job I have is physically challenging enough at the age of 60.

It is not always about laziness and unwillingness to work. That is the point I am trying to get you to understand.

Well, believe it or not, I do understand that. Just as not everyone can be a dressmaker or a telephonist.

fungus pudding
26-10-2020, 06:27 PM
You do realise that that is a whole lot of nonsense. It may be $22.10 per hour in some places, but if you want to be equitable you really have to adjust it for regional differences and costs. I would wager that a wage of $15 per hour is better for a person living in Southland than a $25 per hour wage for someone living in Auckland. But this whole "living wage" movement is BS predicated on nothing. If you do bring in a "Living wage", all it will do is raise all other wages relative, costs will increase, and no one will be better off. It will also just expedite the automation of low skilled jobs such that they rapidly disappear.

Spot on comments.

artemis
26-10-2020, 06:35 PM
The 'living wage' was based on a whole lot of research by some Christian social policy group. It costed in a wide range of items including a Sky dish, the occasional overseas trip. The second year the same 'basket of goods' was applied but the new amount was considered too high to be palatable so it was immediately adjusted down.

Anyway, the whole exercise was based on a household of two adults and I think two children, one adult working full time and the other working part time. The Treasury reported at the time that those households comprised only about 6% of those who could expect to be on the living wage, and that those who most benefited were young single workers and the government through increased tax revenue and decreased transfers.

justakiwi
26-10-2020, 06:47 PM
I do realise that a “a living wage” figure would need to be relative to location, but that is no different to how the accommodation supplement currently works. I disagree however that $15/hr is even remotely appropriate for any location. Nobody in this country can live in that. I couldn’t live on that even with my minimalist lifestyle. People deserve to be paid enough, for the work they do, to do more than just survive. Low income workers are doing jobs that you and I need someone to do - someone has to do them. We can’t all be lawyers and doctors or accountants or contractors. It is time that society recognised this and stopped judging these people and having the attitude that are are doing menial, unimportant jobs because they are uneducated or unskilled. I know someone who worked for NIWA with a double degree in whatever, who is now driving buses in Auckland. I have the brains and ability to be a lawyer, a teacher, a social worker or whatever else, but here I am working as a caregiver. Somebody has to do it, and I’m good at it, so it might as well be me. But I’m worth more than what I am currently paid, regardless of what you believe. Why is it acceptable for an accountant to be paid significantly more than I am? We both provide essential and valuable services. Who gets to dictate that I am worth less than you (whatever you do for a living?)

Some sort of living wage is necessary because without it, we will never pull Kiwis in poverty out of that situation.

PS. just read your latest post - I am talking about a sensible living wage, based on normal, every day costs. Nobody needs SKY TV, or an overseas trip every year. Those are luxuries, not basic necessities. I am talking about paying people enough to pay their mortgage or rent, feed their family healthy, nutritious food, clothe them, be able to pay for school activities and camps etc, meet household expenses, and have a little left over to save for emergencies. I am not proposing that this should cover luxury expenses.

It bothers me greatly that people no longer seem to have any compassion for their fellow Kiwis. There but for the grace of God go I.


You do realise that that is a whole lot of nonsense. It may be $22.10 per hour in some places, but if you want to be equitable you really have to adjust it for regional differences and costs. I would wager that a wage of $15 per hour is better for a person living in Southland than a $25 per hour wage for someone living in Auckland. But this whole "living wage" movement is BS predicated on nothing. If you do bring in a "Living wage", all it will do is raise all other wages relative, costs will increase, and no one will be better off. It will also just expedite the automation of low skilled jobs such that they rapidly disappear.

couta1
26-10-2020, 07:14 PM
I do realise that a “a living wage” figure would need to be relative to location, but that is no different to how the accommodation supplement currently works. I disagree however that $15/hr is even remotely appropriate for any location. Nobody in this country can live in that. I couldn’t live on that even with my minimalist lifestyle. People deserve to be paid enough, for the work they do, to do more than just survive. Low income workers are doing jobs that you and I need someone to do - someone has to do them. We can’t all be lawyers and doctors or accountants or contractors. It is time that society recognised this and stopped judging these people and having the attitude that are are doing menial, unimportant jobs because they are uneducated or unskilled. I know someone who worked for NIWA with a double degree in whatever, who is now driving buses in Auckland. I have the brains and ability to be a lawyer, a teacher, a social worker or whatever else, but here I am working as a caregiver. Somebody has to do it, and I’m good at it, so it might as well be me. But I’m worth more than what I am currently paid, regardless of what you believe. Why is it acceptable for an accountant to be paid significantly more than I am? We both provide essential and valuable services. Who gets to dictate that I am worth less than you (whatever you do for a living?)

Some sort of living wage is necessary because without it, we will never pull Kiwis in poverty out of that situation.

PS. just read your latest post - I am talking about a sensible living wage, based on normal, every day costs. Nobody needs SKY TV, or an overseas trip every year. Those are luxuries, not basic necessities. I am talking about paying people enough to pay their mortgage or rent, feed their family healthy, nutritious food, clothe them, be able to pay for school activities and camps etc, meet household expenses, and have a little left over to save for emergencies. I am not proposing that this should cover luxury expenses.

It bothers me greatly that people no longer seem to have any compassion for their fellow Kiwis. There but for the grace of God go I. I love your passion but your not seeing the whole picture re why an Accountant for example should be paid more than yourself, think about how many full time yrs it took to become one, add to that all the business expenses like office rental, receptionist wages etc etc you need to cover before you even get off first base, someone like a self employed Dentist would have even more yrs of full-time study and a whole heap more expenses to cover, at the end of the day the market decides what an occupation is worth just like the sharemarket decides what your chosen share is worth whether you agree with it or not(I've learnt that one the very hard way a few times)

Bjauck
26-10-2020, 07:28 PM
… But this whole "living wage" movement is BS predicated on nothing. If you do bring in a "Living wage", all it will do is raise all other wages relative, costs will increase, and no one will be better off. It will also just expedite the automation of low skilled jobs such that they rapidly disappear. I agree, wage relativity becomes like a dog chasing its own tail.

It would be great if capital is invested so that The NZ labour force becomes more productive. Automation along with NZ concentrating on developing an educated and highly skilled population would be great. Also the ability to afford and.to quickly retrain and adapt to new technology would be helpful.

Hopefully Investment that helps to lift productivity and does not mainly drive up the price of land will be possible.

justakiwi
26-10-2020, 07:59 PM
Ah ... exactly the response I was expecting. The cost of education and business set up, is always touted as justification for the high salary, but I have never heard of an accountant or lawyer, or dentist, dropping their rate down the track, once they have an established business and have recouped those costs. So once they have recovered those initial costs, what then is their justification for high salaries?

I am not saying I should be paid the same as an accountant. I am saying I am providing an equally as essential and important job as they are. They are responsible for their client’s financial affairs. I am responsible for my residents lives. They are fully dependent on me to ensure their well-being. If I do not do my job well, it has the potential to affect their health. If I administer the wrong medication, I could be responsible for someone’s death.

Why do I not deserve to be paid better? Why is it, that the moment we start talking about increasing minimum wages, for the people at the bottom of the heap, it’s considered not viable? Why is it worth it to you to pay a high rate for your accountant to look after your finances, but it’s not acceptable to pay me a decent wage to care for your mother, father or wife? Why is it ok for me to do my job for less than I am worth, out of passion for what I do, but people doing “more important jobs” are able to set their own financial value?

It’s all BS.






I love your passion but your not seeing the whole picture re why an Accountant for example should be paid more than yourself, think about how many full time yrs it took to become one, add to that all the business expenses like office rental, receptionist wages etc etc you need to cover before you even get off first base, someone like a self employed Dentist would have even more yrs of full-time study and a whole heap more expenses to cover, at the end of the day the market decides what an occupation is worth just like the sharemarket decides what your chosen share is worth whether you agree with it or not(I've learnt that one the very hard way a few times)

SBQ
26-10-2020, 08:26 PM
Ah ... exactly the response I was expecting. The cost of education and business set up, is always touted as justification for the high salary, but I have never heard of an accountant or lawyer, or dentist, dropping their rate down the track, once they have an established business and have recouped those costs. So once they have recovered those initial costs, what then is their justification for high salaries?

I am not saying I should be paid the same as an accountant. I am saying I am providing an equally as essential and important job as they are. They are responsible for their client’s financial affairs. I am responsible for my residents lives. They are fully dependent on me to ensure their well-being. If I do not do my job well, it has the potential to affect their health. If I administer the wrong medication, I could be responsible for someone’s death.

Why do I not deserve to be paid better? Why is it, that the moment we start talking about increasing minimum wages, for the people at the bottom of the heap, it’s considered not viable? Why is it worth it to you to pay a high rate for your accountant to look after your finances, but it’s not acceptable to pay me a decent wage to care for your mother, father or wife? Why is it ok for me to do my job for less than I am worth, out of passion for what I do, but people doing “more important jobs” are able to set their own financial value?

It’s all BS.

It's all about supply and demand. Minimum wage jobs have a high supply and generally, low skilled. Higher paying jobs have a limited supply and require more training, include a high capital cost for the trade, etc.

artemis
27-10-2020, 04:28 AM
It's all about supply and demand. Minimum wage jobs have a high supply and generally, low skilled. Higher paying jobs have a limited supply and require more training, include a high capital cost for the trade, etc.

Correct, and to add to that it is easy enough to give notice and change jobs for higher pay if skills are sufficiently in demand, or if willing to work extra hours.

Bjauck
27-10-2020, 07:49 AM
(8) Switch to lower labour requirements. My cuz turned his dairy farm into growing spuds for a contracted client, for example. Get government funding, plant trees where the grazing or apple trees were, wait a couple of decades.
(9) Automation / robotics. Already here, quietly expanding, even being exported.

Good additional possible consequences. The reduced supply of foreign seasonal workers from poor countries may encourage capital to be invested into automation to boost the productivity and higher paid NZ staff. More companies like Scott Technology may prosper and remain based in NZ.

That would be great. I suspect however that NZ will start making exceptions to heath regulations and import cheap labour and productivity will remain static. Investment will continue to mostly be channelled into maintaining and boosting land prices.

Disc: SCT shareholder

tim23
27-10-2020, 05:51 PM
You do realise that that is a whole lot of nonsense. It may be $22.10 per hour in some places, but if you want to be equitable you really have to adjust it for regional differences and costs. I would wager that a wage of $15 per hour is better for a person living in Southland than a $25 per hour wage for someone living in Auckland. But this whole "living wage" movement is BS predicated on nothing. If you do bring in a "Living wage", all it will do is raise all other wages relative, costs will increase, and no one will be better off. It will also just expedite the automation of low skilled jobs such that they rapidly disappear.

Well I guess you would say the old award system was flawed too? Regional pay rates are tricky to implement.

moka
27-10-2020, 07:57 PM
1. You are making a huge assumption yourself about how some of us view Cindy as indicative of how we view women as a whole.

We view Cindy for who she is - all style and no substance (all talk and no delivery) and that does not mean that we view women all the same way. Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Angela Merkel, Tsai Ing-wen and Margaret Thatcher are but some examples of real leaders who are/were all substance rather than style. Take a step back and differentiate between real leaders and popular leaders - Chavez was hell of a popular and he completely ruined a wealthy country with his populist policies.

Jacinda did deliver with NZ’s covid response. She has plenty of substance as well as style. Just look how Jacinda transformed NZ in a few weeks when Covid hit, with closed borders, lockdowns, wage subsidies etc. That was a huge transformation which the team of five million with a few exceptions willingly accepted and complied with. NZ had a very successful outcome. If you don’t think that was transformational have a look at other goverments e.g. Premier Daniel Andrews in Victoria. Jacinda delivered a great outcome for New Zealand with her government’s response to Covid, which was recognised internationally but it is not recognised by a few here on sharetrader.

moka
27-10-2020, 09:30 PM
It depends on your definition of "works".

Trickledown works in an overall sense. The human race has never enjoyed such a high standard of living and life expectancy. In fact in first world countries this has resulted in a number of self inflicted health problems around dietary choices etc (I realise that invites another discussion).

What Trickledown doesn't do is diminish the "gap" between rich and poor, in fact it can exacerbate it. That is where the tension arises. I'm not saying it is fair, but it is more nuanced than just saying it doesn't work.
When trickle-down works what is it supposed to do? Increase GDP, increase growth and over time this growth will generate enough government revenue to offset tax losses. But it works best according to the Laffer curve when taxes are high 50% – 100%. So what trickles down to the workers and how? The articles I read are silent on this point.
“All of this expansion will trickle down to workers”
“According to the theory, this boost in growth will ultimately help those in lower income brackets as well.”
Giving tax breaks to the wealthy stands as a policy meant to improve the overall health of the economy.
John F. Kennedy (https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/kennedy-johnson-era.htm) showed his support of the trickle-down economic theory when he said, "a rising tide lifts all boats" -- meaning that a growing economy benefits you whether you're rich or poor [source: Nugent (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q)].

https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572
(https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572)
The International Monetary Fund rejects the trickle-down theory.
…increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth — that is, when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down.” The IMF’s fight against income inequality revolves around the fact that expenditures of middle- to low-income sectors are the drivers of the economy. Even a mere 1% increase in wealth for 20% of low-income earners yields a 0.38% growth in gross domestic product. On the other hand, increasing the income of the top 20% high-income earners results in a negative 0.08% growth in GDP.

Trickle-down economics generally does not work because:


Cutting taxes for the wealthy often do not translate to increased rates of employment, consumer spending, and government revenues in the long-term.
Instead, cutting taxes for middle-and lower-income earners will drive the economy through the trickle-up phenomenon.
The added income for the wealthy, resulting from tax cuts, will simply increase the growing income inequality in the United States.

moka
27-10-2020, 09:54 PM
Thanks to that evil capitalism, globally ONLY 2 Billion people have been lifted out of poverty the last 30 years. Why are we even talking about inequality in that context.You would be talking about inequality if you were living in poverty in New Zealand.
Global population 7.8 billion as of October 2020 so 25% have been lifted out of poverty. Or to put it another way 75% of people still live in poverty in a world of plenty.

https://borgenproject.org/how-much-does-it-cost-to-end-poverty/
(https://borgenproject.org/how-much-does-it-cost-to-end-poverty/)
How Much Does it Cost to End Poverty?
Today the world produces enough food for everyone on the planet. So why are more than a billion people still dying of hunger? Why is life itself tenuous for so many families while the eight richest people in the world have as much wealth as the poorest 50 percent of people in the world?
The answer is poverty (https://borgenproject.org/5-effects-poverty/). But poverty can be stopped, and this raises the question, “how much does it cost to end poverty?”
But poverty is more than just very low incomes. It is hunger, high mortality rates, conflicts, a lack of education or health services and a lack of a future for hundreds of thousands of women, men and children.

Jeffrey Sachs, as one of the world’s leading experts on economic development and the fight against poverty, stated that the cost to end poverty is $175 billion per year (https://www.visionofearth.org/economics/ending-poverty/how-much-would-it-cost-to-end-extreme-poverty-in-the-world/) for 20 years. This yearly amount is less than 1 percent of the combined income of the richest countries in the world, and only four times the United States’ military budget for one year.
Ending poverty is possible and at a low cost. Now we just need ordinary citizens as well as multinational corporations to start meeting their responsibilities to help the poor and the left behind.

moka
27-10-2020, 10:46 PM
That is a cop out.

NZ used to enjoy one of the highest standard of living in the world right through the 1950s to the mid 1970s. You need to assess why NZ has gone backwards in such a big way since then to understand why school children need lunch handouts and there are homeless & beggars in the street today.

The simple answer can be provided by this question :

"How can there be tens of thousands of jobs a begging in the agricultural sector when there are several hundred thousand NZers unemployed and on the benefit?"

Why has New Zealand gone backwards in living standards from the mid 1970s = neoliberalism. Neoliberal strategies include driving down wages, opposition to unions, labour market flexibility.
Good chart in the article showing how since 1973 there has been a divergence of productivity versus hourly compensation. US figures but NZ’s shows a similar divergence.

Though productivity (defined as the output of goods and services per hours worked) grew by about 74 percent between 1973 and 2013, compensation for workers grew at a much slower rate of only 9 percent during the same time period, according to data from the Economic Policy Institute.
Labor has become more efficient and profitable, but employees aren't sharing in the benefits.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/why-the-gap-between-worker-pay-and-productivity-is-so-problematic/385931/
(https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/why-the-gap-between-worker-pay-and-productivity-is-so-problematic/385931/)
But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter the mainstream. As Friedman remarked, “when the time came that you had to change ... there was an alternative ready there to be picked up”. With the help of sympathetic journalists and political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially its prescriptions for monetary policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter’s administration in the US and Jim Callaghan’s government in Britain.
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have been promoted with the slogan “there is no alternative”.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot)

blackcap
28-10-2020, 06:21 AM
Why has New Zealand gone backwards in living standards from the mid 1970s = neoliberalism. [/FONT][/URL][/FONT]

Surely you jest? The NZ from the 70's was way worse than the NZ now. Not even close. NZ's standard of living has improved markedly.

jonu
28-10-2020, 06:21 AM
Why has New Zealand gone backwards in living standards from the mid 1970s = neoliberalism. Neoliberal strategies include driving down wages, opposition to unions, labour market flexibility.
Good chart in the article showing how since 1973 there has been a divergence of productivity versus hourly compensation. US figures but NZ’s shows a similar divergence.

Though productivity (defined as the output of goods and services per hours worked) grew by about 74 percent between 1973 and 2013, compensation for workers grew at a much slower rate of only 9 percent during the same time period, according to data from the Economic Policy Institute.
Labor has become more efficient and profitable, but employees aren't sharing in the benefits.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/why-the-gap-between-worker-pay-and-productivity-is-so-problematic/385931/
(https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/why-the-gap-between-worker-pay-and-productivity-is-so-problematic/385931/)
But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter the mainstream. As Friedman remarked, “when the time came that you had to change ... there was an alternative ready there to be picked up”. With the help of sympathetic journalists and political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially its prescriptions for monetary policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter’s administration in the US and Jim Callaghan’s government in Britain.
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have been promoted with the slogan “there is no alternative”.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot)

Badly flawed premise moka. Can you show me where neo-liberalism was present in the Kirk/Rowling/Muldoon governments of the 70's?

Your long treatise bears no relation to NZ history. Check your dates for when LABOUR's neo-liberal policies came into play in the late 80's, as a kneejerk reaction to the interventionist policies of the 70s which combined with the oil shocks and formation of the EEC had been a disaster.

jonu
28-10-2020, 06:30 AM
You would be talking about inequality if you were living in poverty in New Zealand.
Global population 7.8 billion as of October 2020 so 25% have been lifted out of poverty. Or to put it another way 75% of people still live in poverty in a world of plenty.[/I]

Blatant misrepresentation of statistics to support another long winded spiel. You really must learn to build a strong foundation for your arguments moka, rather than starting off with an obvious error and constructing your argument upon it.

The 25% poverty statistic does not even remotely imply that the remaining 75% was also living in poverty. You're not only speaking to gullible Cindy acolytes here moka! Sharpen up your act!

blackcap
28-10-2020, 07:44 AM
You would be talking about inequality if you were living in poverty in New Zealand.
Global population 7.8 billion as of October 2020 so 25% have been lifted out of poverty. Or to put it another way 75% of people still live in poverty in a world of plenty.

.[/I]

Not at all. Not all of the 7.8 billion were living in poverty. 2 Billion have been lifted out of poverty of the 3 Billion or so that were in poverty. So you are making up crap as you go along. Just like you did in the Neo Liberal thing talking about the 70's when it was instituted by Labour in 1980's. But you have an agenda so keep up the work. Its interesting reading for a good laugh.

fungus pudding
28-10-2020, 07:54 AM
Surely you jest? The NZ from the 70's was way worse than the NZ now. Not even close. NZ's standard of living has improved markedly.

'The good old days' were always a wonderful time when seen in the rear view mirror, or in moka's case, has his head on backwards.

iceman
28-10-2020, 08:25 AM
So now we have proof Ardern and Hipkins were lying and simply threw Bloomfield under the bus https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300143515/cabinet-knew-about-lack-of-border-tests-before-august-outbreak

Bjauck
28-10-2020, 08:34 AM
'The good old days' were always a wonderful time when seen in the rear view mirror, or in moka's case, has his head on backwards.
The post-covid times with low interest rates seem on track to further exacerbating the the trend in divergence of wealth. Asset prices have increased. So maybe some think the future is rosier?

However, it is pretty scary looking through the windscreen at the road ahead.

Bob Jones is waiting for what he sees as the inevitable crash when reality can no longer be postponed.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/123101150/well-be-buying-up-big-sir-bob-jones-sits-on-a-stash-of-cash-waiting

fungus pudding
28-10-2020, 08:38 AM
When trickle-down works what is it supposed to do? Increase GDP, increase growth and over time this growth will generate enough government revenue to offset tax losses. But it works best according to the Laffer curve when taxes are high 50% – 100%.

You obviously do not understand Laffer economics. I doubt you have ever studied the philosophy. But just to help you out, according to the curve, trickle down slows at 50% and stops at 100%.

jonu
28-10-2020, 09:20 AM
So now we have proof Ardern and Hipkins were lying and simply threw Bloomfield under the bus https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300143515/cabinet-knew-about-lack-of-border-tests-before-august-outbreak

Her faithful will never believe it. Cindy is as pure as the driven snow in their eyes. History will show her to be one of the most deeply cynical politicians our country has suffered.

Bjauck
28-10-2020, 09:31 AM
You obviously do not understand Laffer economics. I doubt you have ever studied the philosophy. But just to help you out, according to the curve, trickle down slows at 50% and stops at 100%. Laffer "economics" expounded in the USA? Where they have a general Capital Gains Tax and death duties too?

It is arguable that in NZ that any "trickle-down" could dry up with Income Tax rates even below 50% as the more highly paid and wealthy invest their tax-paid money in long-term assets with capital gains. The Laffer envelope has a more limited application to the NZ tax environment?

Tax cuts for higher income earners will more likely lead to a drop in overall tax returns as any boost in GST does not compensate for the reduction on income tax receipts. With the wealthy able to leverage their increased net income into investments, with capital gains comprising the bulk of their return.

fungus pudding
28-10-2020, 10:28 AM
Laffer "economics" expounded in the USA? Where they have a general Capital Gains Tax and death duties too?

It is arguable that in NZ that any "trickle-down" could dry up with Income Tax rates even below 50% as the more highly paid and wealthy invest their tax-paid money in long-term assets with capital gains. The Laffer envelope has a more limited application to the NZ tax environment?

Tax cuts for higher income earners will more likely lead to a drop in overall tax returns as any boost in GST does not compensate for the reduction on income tax receipts. With the wealthy able to leverage their increased net income into investments, with capital gains comprising the bulk of their return.

You overlook the main point of the Laffer curve. That is there are always two different percentage rates a high and a low, that will produce the same result, or the same amount of tax revenue. The obvious examples are 100% (where nobody bothers doing anything or doesn't bother charging for it, or most likely operates only in the black economy) and 0% where regardless of activity, the govt. gets nothing. So perhaps in NZ 90% and 4% might produce a similar result.
(The Labour proposed 39% to be introduced is in my opinion too high on the wrong side of the curve and will boost the black economy.)

westerly
28-10-2020, 10:30 AM
Badly flawed premise moka. Can you show me where neo-liberalism was present in the Kirk/Rowling/Muldoon governments of the 70's?

Your long treatise bears no relation to NZ history. Check your dates for when LABOUR's neo-liberal policies came into play in the late 80's, as a kneejerk reaction to the interventionist policies of the 70s which combined with the oil shocks and formation of the EEC had been a disaster.

Moka, ignore Jonu and Blackcap who I suspect, given their undying support of the biggest joke to come out of the US since the Marx bothers, are Republicans who have lost their way and found themselves in NZ.
Milton Freidman and the Chicago School of Economics originated in the seventies and became prominent with Regan and Thatcher.
You are quite correct to say NZ had a better standard of living in the seventies, maybe not materially but socially.
State Advances offered finance for first home builders and developers catered to the market building modest homes on bare sections. Totally different nowdays.

westerly

jonu
28-10-2020, 10:50 AM
Moka, ignore Jonu and Blackcap who I suspect, given their undying support of the biggest joke to come out of the US since the Marx bothers, are Republicans who have lost their way and found themselves in NZ.
Milton Freidman and the Chicago School of Economics originated in the seventies and became prominent with Regan and Thatcher.
You are quite correct to say NZ had a better standard of living in the seventies, maybe not materially but socially.
State Advances offered finance for first home builders and developers catered to the market building modest homes on bare sections. Totally different nowdays.

westerly

Born and bred here actually westerly. And perhaps you could point me to where neo-liberal economic policies were prevalent in NZ in the 1970s?

And furthermore I have never said I supported Trump which is what you appear to be alluding to.

You and moka aren't shy of misrepresenting things to back your point of view are you? Pretty low level of integrity on display.

Ignoring me doesn't make the truth go away.

fungus pudding
28-10-2020, 10:57 AM
Born and bred here actually westerly. And perhaps you could point me to where neo-liberal economic policies were prevalent in NZ in the 1970s?

Ignoring me doesn't make the truth go away.

I'd be interested too Westerley - don't keep us guessing. Give us some examples.

artemis
28-10-2020, 11:47 AM
....
You are quite correct to say NZ had a better standard of living in the seventies, maybe not materially but socially.
State Advances offered finance for first home builders and developers catered to the market building modest homes on bare sections. Totally different nowdays.

Westerly

One big difference back in the day was the ability to capitalise family benefit, because it was universal. That was often enough for a deposit on a modest home.

couta1
28-10-2020, 12:25 PM
The music was way better than this synthetic junk we have today.

westerly
28-10-2020, 12:40 PM
Born and bred here actually westerly. And perhaps you could point me to where neo-liberal economic policies were prevalent in NZ in the 1970s?

And furthermore I have never said I supported Trump which is what you appear to be alluding to.

You and moka aren't shy of misrepresenting things to back your point of view are you? Pretty low level of integrity on display.

Ignoring me doesn't make the truth go away.

My apologies Jonu, got you mixed up with Paddles, must be old age. 😳
Moka said the chart quoted showed the same decline as the US from the seventies. Douglas was in Govt 1984-90 followed by Richardson and they were responsible for the introduction of neo liberal
policies.
That there has been a decline in living standards from the seventies as a direct result is undeniable.
The demands for free dental care the latest evidence of a decline in living standards.

westerly

jonu
28-10-2020, 12:50 PM
My apologies Jonu, got you mixed up with Paddles, must be old age. ��
Moka said the chart quoted showed the same decline as the US from the seventies. Douglas was in Govt 1984-90 followed by Richardson and they were responsible for the introduction of neo liberal
policies.
That there has been a decline in living standards from the seventies as a direct result is undeniable.
The demands for free dental care the latest evidence of a decline in living standards.

westerly

Apology accepted westerly.

If the decline in living standards was due to neo-liberal policies introduced by Labour in the mid to late 80s, why did moka acknowledge the decline actually began in the 70s?
There is no evident correlation.

Bjauck
28-10-2020, 01:25 PM
...
(The Labour proposed 39% to be introduced is in my opinion too high on the wrong side of the curve and will boost the black economy.) I think any further reliance on income taxes, instead of broadening the tax base, will be on the wrong side of the curve. it will more likely boost the comparative appeal of those assets earning predominately capital gains.

fungus pudding
28-10-2020, 02:45 PM
I think any further reliance on income taxes, instead of broadening the tax base, will be on the wrong side of the curve. it will more likely boost the comparative appeal of those assets earning predominately capital gains.


Capital gains are of no particular benefit to traders.
PIE income looks more attractive than it was to investors.

Balance
29-10-2020, 07:59 AM
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/123203930/horticulture-work-really-hard-at-first-but-theres-decent-money-to-be-made

Hard work in the horticultural sector but decent money.

Try telling that to the tens of thousands on benefits who are enjoying the laid back lifestyle.

Stumpynuts
29-10-2020, 08:16 AM
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/123203930/horticulture-work-really-hard-at-first-but-theres-decent-money-to-be-made

Hard work in the horticultural sector but decent money.

Try telling that to the tens of thousands on benefits who are enjoying the laid back lifestyle.


I'd take up this offer.
In exchange for me doing some horticultural work I'd request that my return airfare & accomodation is heavily subsidised in some way, as well as letting me take home as much fruit as I can take back with me.
Actually it's not that bad of an idea to get Kiwis seeing other parts of the country.

Balance
29-10-2020, 08:23 AM
I'd take up this offer.
In exchange for me doing some horticultural work I'd request that my return airfare & accomodation is heavily subsidised in some way, as well as letting me take home as much fruit as I can take back with me.
Actually it's not that bad of an idea to get Kiwis seeing other parts of the country.

And there you have it - forget about doing a decent day’s work for a decent day’s pay.

blackcap
29-10-2020, 08:23 AM
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/123203930/horticulture-work-really-hard-at-first-but-theres-decent-money-to-be-made

Hard work in the horticultural sector but decent money.

Try telling that to the tens of thousands on benefits who are enjoying the laid back lifestyle.

Nothing wrong with hard work. It is actually very beneficial for the body, good for the mind, and often gives one a sense of satisfaction at the end of the day. Why society these days demonises hard work is beyond me.

justakiwi
29-10-2020, 08:40 AM
There are additional costs involved with traveling to a different location, to do seasonal fruit picking. So those costs need to be taken into account, whether you like it or not. Not everyone seeking work, has transport available. Flights or even bus fares are not cheap if you have to travel from South Canterbury to Nelson for example. Why do you expect unemployed people (or anyone for that matter) to simply suck that cost up? Low income people need every $ they earn. They can’t afford to spend a significant portion of what they earn, paying for transport and accommodation (if it is not provided).


And there you have it - forget about doing a decent day’s work for a decent day’s pay.

Stumpynuts
29-10-2020, 08:46 AM
And there you have it - forget about doing a decent day’s work for a decent day’s pay.
No I'd still do the work, pay for my own airfare, pay for my own accomodation, but I already have a full-time job.
I'd take this on as additional weekend work - I would look at it as more of a weekend escape.

The subsidy comment is more of an incentive for the horticultural industry to get better quality, better educated individuals to turn up to their fields.
Depending on good marketing you could make this out to be a trendy thing to do - All about the marketing.

Balance
29-10-2020, 09:03 AM
No I'd still do the work, pay for my own airfare, pay for my own accomodation, but I already have a full-time job.
I'd take this on as additional weekend work - I would look at it as more of a weekend escape.

The subsidy comment is more of an incentive for the horticultural industry to get better quality, better educated individuals to turn up to their fields.
Depending on good marketing you could make this out to be a trendy thing to do - All about the marketing.

Good on you, stumpynuts.

My apologies for thinking otherwise.

Balance
29-10-2020, 09:18 AM
There are additional costs involved with traveling to a different location, to do seasonal fruit picking. So those costs need to be taken into account, whether you like it or not. Not everyone seeking work, has transport available. Flights or even bus fares are not cheap if you have to travel from South Canterbury to Nelson for example. Why do you expect unemployed people (or anyone for that matter) to simply suck that cost up? Low income people need every $ they earn. They can’t afford to spend a significant portion of what they earn, paying for transport and accommodation (if it is not provided).

Of course there will be additional costs and inconveniences!

What is unquantifiable are the huge & extremely uplifting benefits of being in gainful employment providing a purpose in life, being in the company of like minded hard working people and being in the fresh air - more than compensating for the additional costs and inconveniences.

Plus, it is impossible to believe that there are no unemployed individuals within driving distances to the orchards and gardens. I know for a fact that farms in Pukekohe and Henderson in Auckland are screaming out for workers and the only ones they can get are Indian students* and seasonal workers. Some of the farms provide vans to pick up the workers in the mornings and drop them back after work.

*Incidentally, notice how fast food places and supermarkets are staffed in the main by overseas workers (as in *Indian & Asian students) these days in Auckland? Because they have and are willing to work while NZers are at home because they can and are on the dough.

Just so you know, justakwi - I put myself through university working at three places during the week while studying, putting in at least 30 hours a week over 3 years (2 restaurants & a wood work factory) so I do not have much sympathy or empathy for anyone who thinks that life should be easy and moan about the benefits not being enough. Many of my fellow university friends decamped to Central Otago to tend orchards and pick fruits over the summer holidays, staying in rooms in boarding houses so they can save money for the year ahead.

dobby41
29-10-2020, 09:38 AM
If a currently unemployed person were to take up some of the seasonal work what happens when it ends (it is seasonal after all)?
Can they go straight back on the benefit or is there a 13 week stand down?
If there is a stand down then that doesn't really work does it?
So, maybe they can tweak the system to allow for this.
Also, when I travel from Hamilton to the Hawkes Bay to do some pruning, picking or whatever I've got to find accommodation as well as continue to pay the accommodation for my family left in Hamilton.
A few fish hooks that need to be worked through.

Bjauck
29-10-2020, 09:48 AM
Nothing wrong with hard work. It is actually very beneficial for the body, good for the mind, and often gives one a sense of satisfaction at the end of the day. Why society these days demonises hard work is beyond me. ..and yet for some the financial rewards have often come more from the increase in the equity of their own home, as result from falling interest rates boosting valuations. Yet it is their hard work, physical and mental, that is taxed.

Balance
29-10-2020, 09:49 AM
If a currently unemployed person were to take up some of the seasonal work what happens when it ends (it is seasonal after all)?
Can they go straight back on the benefit or is there a 13 week stand down?
If there is a stand down then that doesn't really work does it?
So, maybe they can tweak the system to allow for this.
Also, when I travel from Hamilton to the Hawkes Bay to do some pruning, picking or whatever I've got to find accommodation as well as continue to pay the accommodation for my family left in Hamilton.
A few fish hooks that need to be worked through.

All good points which a competent government will be working out.

Think we have a competent government?

Balance
29-10-2020, 09:50 AM
..and yet for some the financial rewards have often come more from the increase in the equity of their own home, as result from falling interest rates boosting valuations. Yet it is their hard work, physical and mental, that is taxed.

Oh - but for a CGT.

Stumpynuts
29-10-2020, 09:56 AM
Of course there will be additional costs and inconveniences!

Plus, it is impossible to believe that there are no unemployed individuals within driving distances to the orchards and gardens. I know for a fact that farms in Pukekohe and Henderson in Auckland are screaming out for workers and the only ones they can get are Indian students* and seasonal workers. Some of the farms provide vans to pick up the workers in the mornings and drop them back after work.

Many of my fellow university friends decamped to Central Otago to tend orchards and pick fruits over the summer holidays, staying in rooms in boarding houses so they can save money for the year ahead.

How's this for an out of left field idea to get the fruit picked for a lower cost (or for free?) - I'm not sure if it even happens already?

Get high school aged students to take up the orchard fruit picking by having it as part of class work towards NCEA credits (Science and PE subjects mainly)
Even if it's only half a day actually picking, and the other half sitting down on site with some related class lessons ie. Science students working towards Agriscience, or biology - They get to learn about planting, crop maintenance etc.
PE students learn about body physical fatigue, muscle recovery or what not.

Students wouldn't get paid, but they would get a day/s out of the classroom and the orchard company would pay for food and provide a portacom building for students to sit down.

fungus pudding
29-10-2020, 09:59 AM
..and yet for some the financial rewards have often come more from the increase in the equity of their own home, as result from falling interest rates boosting valuations. Yet it is their hard work, physical and mental, that is taxed.

It seems you agree that a fair and effective CGT would tax owner occupied homes, which will never happen because it would be political seppuku.

westerly
29-10-2020, 10:17 AM
It seems you agree that a fair and effective CGT would tax owner occupied homes, which will never happen because it would be political seppuku.

I suppose the proceeds from the sale of most owner occupied houses would be used to purchase a new place to reside. This would adsorb most if not all the capital gain.
A prime reason to not tax the family home. Hit them with death duties.

westerly

dobby41
29-10-2020, 10:44 AM
I suppose the proceeds from the sale of most owner occupied houses would be used to purchase a new place to reside. This would adsorb most if not all the capital gain.

And that is certainly an issue.
Some years back I built a house for $300k.
I sold it 8 years later for $650k and built a very similar house (same spec and size etc) and it cost me ---- $630k.
So no real capital gain there!

justakiwi
29-10-2020, 11:07 AM
OK, I am going to ask you a question I have resisted the urge to ask you before ...

Have you ever been on the unemployment benefit?

As you already know, I have. Twice. I have tried and tried to provide you with some insight into the realities of being unemployed and reliant on government assistance, but you seen incapable or unwilling to even attempt to look at things from any perspective other than your own. Yes, I know there are some people who take advantage of the “system” which is probably more to do with their family situation and less than ideal role models when they were growing up, than it is to do with simple laziness. But you have to stop treating all unemployed people as if they were in this category. They are not. People become unemployed all manner of reasons. My ex was made redundant many years ago and spent a short period of time on the dole out of necessity. I had four children to support post our separation so yes, I had to suck it up and go on the DPB. For a great deal longer than I ever anticipated because jobs were hard to get where I lived and finding one that works for you when you are raising four kids on your own, is bloody difficult! I did work part job in a furniture factory for 3 months, but at $10/hr and a distance to get to and from work, I ended up with literally nothing in my hand. I also ended up with RSS in my elbows and shoulders which has never gone away. My second experience was much later in life - before I got my current job. I had a part time job for several months, but my job was terminated because I developed a chronic cough. Yep, a freaking cough. Apparently working on reception at a medical centre, with a cough, wasn’t a good look. So due to no fault of my own, I found myself unemployed. It took me almost two years to get the job I have now. Do you have any idea what that was like? The only reason WINZ didn’t get on my case about it, was because they could see just how much effort I was putting into finding a job. Application after application. Many interviews. But rejection after rejection. Ageism is rife in the admin field. Do you seriously believe that I chose this for myself? And don’t tell me I’m the exception to the rule because that’s total BS. There are plenty of people in the same position I was in.

Yes, working gives you a huge sense of self satisfaction and personal motivation and achievement, but you can’t pay your bills and feed your kids with it. Money isn’t just important to people in your position Balance. People at the bottom of the scrap heap need it even more than you do. So yeah, the costs involved with doing seasonal work are relevant and cannot simply be ignored.

Oh, and just so you know Balance, I achieved my Diploma in ICT via the government. Yep, social assistance in the form of a Study Incentive Allowance (or whatever it was called back then). But guess what? I don’t feel bad about that - not one little bit. I needed help to do it and it got me my job at CYF for 8 years. I couldn’t have done it without that assistance. I’m sure you will be pissed that your tax dollars went to help me with that, but now that I am employed again, I am more than happy for mine to help someone else.


Of course there will be additional costs and inconveniences!

What is unquantifiable are the huge & extremely uplifting benefits of being in gainful employment providing a purpose in life, being in the company of like minded hard working people and being in the fresh air - more than compensating for the additional costs and inconveniences.

Plus, it is impossible to believe that there are no unemployed individuals within driving distances to the orchards and gardens. I know for a fact that farms in Pukekohe and Henderson in Auckland are screaming out for workers and the only ones they can get are Indian students* and seasonal workers. Some of the farms provide vans to pick up the workers in the mornings and drop them back after work.

*Incidentally, notice how fast food places and supermarkets are staffed in the main by overseas workers (as in *Indian & Asian students) these days in Auckland? Because they have and are willing to work while NZers are at home because they can and are on the dough.

Just so you know, justakwi - I put myself through university working at three places during the week while studying, putting in at least 30 hours a week over 3 years (2 restaurants & a wood work factory) so I do not have much sympathy or empathy for anyone who thinks that life should be easy and moan about the benefits not being enough. Many of my fellow university friends decamped to Central Otago to tend orchards and pick fruits over the summer holidays, staying in rooms in boarding houses so they can save money for the year ahead.

moka
29-10-2020, 12:00 PM
If a currently unemployed person were to take up some of the seasonal work what happens when it ends (it is seasonal after all)?
Can they go straight back on the benefit or is there a 13 week stand down?
If there is a stand down then that doesn't really work does it?
So, maybe they can tweak the system to allow for this.
Also, when I travel from Hamilton to the Hawkes Bay to do some pruning, picking or whatever I've got to find accommodation as well as continue to pay the accommodation for my family left in Hamilton.
A few fish hooks that need to be worked through.
Another fish hook is accommodation – housing shortage. If you are single, rent in Hamilton do you give up your flat, move, sell, store your furniture and hope you can find suitable short term accommodation in say Nelson (pay a bond for a flat?), and then hope you can find another flat when you move back to Hamilton. The costs involved do not make economic sense in many cases.

Also many unemployed live payday to payday with no back up savings, so no money for travelling. I was going to go fruitpicking back when I was in my twenties (1970s), and I had savings, a vehicle, and no concerns about accommodation, so it seemed like an adventure to me. I didn’t do it as I went overseas instead.

moka
29-10-2020, 12:12 PM
If the family home was taxed under capital gains it would deter people from moving to another job in another city because they would not be able to purchase an equivalent home, which would not be good for the employee, the business, the economy and NZ as a whole.

moka
29-10-2020, 12:21 PM
Heather du Plessis-Allan says Isn’t the problem really that this work (fruitpicking) is seasonal. It's gig work. It’s not year round.
So it’s always only ever going to attract the likes of students, backpackers, and international workers. People who only need short stints of work. People who don’t mind hostel-like accommodation because it’s for a short period of time.
That’s not going to work for kiwis with families is it? You can hardly move your family to Hawke’s bay for a few weeks’ worth of work can you?

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/video/heather-du-plessis-allan-let-the-fruit-pickers-in/

justakiwi
29-10-2020, 12:36 PM
Depending on how long the temp work was for, their benefit would be suspended every week they earned more than their usual benefit payment. Problem with that is, you declare your earnings in the week you earn it not the week you get paid for it, so someone could potentially find the self/their family, with no income at all for two weeks (or more depending on timing and pay schedule of orchard etc).




If a currently unemployed person were to take up some of the seasonal work what happens when it ends (it is seasonal after all)?
Can they go straight back on the benefit or is there a 13 week stand down?
If there is a stand down then that doesn't really work does it?
So, maybe they can tweak the system to allow for this.
Also, when I travel from Hamilton to the Hawkes Bay to do some pruning, picking or whatever I've got to find accommodation as well as continue to pay the accommodation for my family left in Hamilton.
A few fish hooks that need to be worked through.

moka
29-10-2020, 12:51 PM
The growers said picking was often hard physical work and was unsuitable for many of the people the Labour Party was trying to steer in its direction.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/country/428232/growers-warn-time-is-slipping-by-for-harvest-amid-dire-need-for-pickers
(https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/country/428232/growers-warn-time-is-slipping-by-for-harvest-amid-dire-need-for-pickers)
With pruning kiwifruit there is a high risk of RSI/OOS so it is not suitable for everyone.

fungus pudding
29-10-2020, 12:53 PM
If the family home was taxed under capital gains it would deter people from moving to another job in another city because they would not be able to purchase an equivalent home, which would not be good for the employee, the business, the economy and NZ as a whole.

Precisely why some cgt systems have a repatriation clause allowing an assett to be sold cgt free provided the assett is replaced within a certain time frame

moka
29-10-2020, 12:58 PM
Getting workers to pick fruit is a long-standing problem as this press release on 20 January 2004 by the National party shows.

National says get foreign fruit pickers picking
The Minister of Immigration (Lianne Dalziel) has the power to grant exceptions to policy to allow visiting backpackers to pick fruit, and she should do so, says National MP Murray McCully.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0401/S00124.htm

dobby41
29-10-2020, 01:42 PM
Depending on how long the temp work was for, their benefit would be suspended every week they earned more than their usual benefit payment. Problem with that is, you declare your earnings in the week you earn it not the week you get paid for it, so someone could potentially find the self/their family, with no income at all for two weeks (or more depending on timing and pay schedule of orchard etc).

You can't go on and off work - there are stand downs.

justakiwi
29-10-2020, 02:05 PM
I worked part time while on the benefit - variable hours, some weeks no work. I declared my income every Friday and my benefit was adjusted accordingly for the following week. If I had earned more than my benefit amount that week, I got no benefit the following week. If I earned more than $80 gross a week my benefit was reduced the next week. If I earned less $80 gross or less, my benefit wasn’t affected. If you obtain casual, short term work, the system will work the same. It would also probably depend on how much you earned over the temp period, and there may be a limit to the number of weeks you can work like this. You would have to check with WINZ for that information.


You can't go on and off work - there are stand downs.

Bjauck
29-10-2020, 02:23 PM
If the family home was taxed under capital gains it would deter people from moving to another job in another city because they would not be able to purchase an equivalent home, which would not be good for the employee, the business, the economy and NZ as a whole. That is probably the exisiting case anyway for those moving from a cheaper area to Auckland for example. There would be an argument for allowing Cgt to be property inflation adjusted. It would mean equity in home that had been leveraged would have the cgt levied in a rising market.

dobby41
29-10-2020, 02:34 PM
I worked part time while on the benefit - variable hours, some weeks no work. I declared my income every Friday and my benefit was adjusted accordingly for the following week. If I had earned more than my benefit amount that week, I got no benefit the following week. If I earned more than $80 gross a week my benefit was reduced the next week. If I earned less $80 gross or less, my benefit wasn’t affected. If you obtain casual, short term work, the system will work the same. It would also probably depend on how much you earned over the temp period, and there may be a limit to the number of weeks you can work like this. You would have to check with WINZ for that information.

Thanks for the info on how it really works.

Bjauck
29-10-2020, 02:50 PM
I worked part time while on the benefit - variable hours, some weeks no work. I declared my income every Friday and my benefit was adjusted accordingly for the following week. If I had earned more than my benefit amount that week, I got no benefit the following week. If I earned more than $80 gross a week my benefit was reduced the next week. If I earned less $80 gross or less, my benefit wasn’t affected. If you obtain casual, short term work, the system will work the same. It would also probably depend on how much you earned over the temp period, and there may be a limit to the number of weeks you can work like this. You would have to check with WINZ for that information.

I think today support cut-out points are somewhat higher than the benefit payable - if I understand the WINZ tables correctly. They should be of course as there are costs involved in getting to and having a job.
https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/map/deskfile/main-benefits-cut-out-points/jobseeker-support-cut-out-points-current.html

justakiwi
29-10-2020, 03:06 PM
Things have improved according to that information, which is a good thing. I wonder if the $80 gross income point has changed too? It was $80 back in 2002 and was still $80 three years ago. Nowhere near enough to help people get back into work and off the benefit.


I think today support cut-out points are somewhat higher than the benefit payable - if I understand the WINZ tables correctly. They should be of course as there are costs involved in getting to and having a job.
https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/map/deskfile/main-benefits-cut-out-points/jobseeker-support-cut-out-points-current.html

Bjauck
29-10-2020, 03:31 PM
Things have improved according to that information, which is a good thing. I wonder if the $80 gross income point has changed too? It was $80 back in 2002 and was still $80 three years ago. Nowhere near enough to help people get back into work and off the benefit. It depends on the benefit: e.g Jobseeker single $90; Solo parent $115.

SBQ
29-10-2020, 04:08 PM
Precisely why some cgt systems have a repatriation clause allowing an assett to be sold cgt free provided the assett is replaced within a certain time frame

That's more like the US system of handling CGT on the principal residence house. Since mortgage interest can be deducted of the individuals taxable income, it's expected sooner or later the capital gain on the home will be recognised. But on most part, MOST Americans pay no CGT on their home as 'death / estate taxes' don't normally apply to the common individual - you have to be in excess of $12 MILLION in assets before those taxes apply.

Watch out NZ, the Labour + Greens will form some way to tax more from the haves.

moka
29-10-2020, 10:15 PM
Badly flawed premise moka. Can you show me where neo-liberalism was present in the Kirk/Rowling/Muldoon governments of the 70's?

Your long treatise bears no relation to NZ history. Check your dates for when LABOUR's neo-liberal policies came into play in the late 80's, as a kneejerk reaction to the interventionist policies of the 70s which combined with the oil shocks and formation of the EEC had been a disaster.


Born and bred here actually westerly. And perhaps you could point me to where neo-liberal economic policies were prevalent in NZ in the 1970s?

You and moka aren't shy of misrepresenting things to back your point of view are you? Pretty low level of integrity on display.

Ignoring me doesn't make the truth go away.
I said why has New Zealand gone backwards in living standards from the mid 1970s = neoliberalism.

The 1970s was a period of economic stagnation in much of the Western world putting an end to the overall Post–World War II economic expansion. In New Zealand the 1970s was an era plagued by an economic pattern of stagnation, high inflation, rising prices and rising unemployment and high external debts and borrowing. In 1973 OPEC stopped selling oil to the United States. The embargo sent gas prices through the roof. Between 1973-1974, prices more than quadrupled. The embargo contributed to stagflation.

The answer to the stagflation was neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is not a new idea, the ideas of laissez faire or free markets have been the dominant economic philosophy for centuries. The 1920s were a period of a laissez faire philosophy. Laissez faire means being relatively free of government control or regulation.

Neoliberalism was part of a paradigm shift that followed the failure of the Keynesian consensus in economics to address the stagflation of the 1970s. Keynes' style of economics encouraged a more active role of the government in order to "manage overall demand so that there was a balance between demand and output". These ideas dominated mainstream economics in the post-war period and formed the mainstream of macroeconomic thought in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.

Bjauck
30-10-2020, 06:39 AM
I said why has New Zealand gone backwards in living standards from the mid 1970s = neoliberalism.
...

Muldoon PM from 1975-84 was an old-fashioned state interventionist.

The UK, which had been NZ's most important trade partner, joined the EEC (now the EU) in 1973. That had an important income generating impact for NZ. There was an urgent need to find new markets for our exports which then faced EEC tariffs and quotas.

jonu
30-10-2020, 06:48 AM
I said why has New Zealand gone backwards in living standards from the mid 1970s = neoliberalism.

The 1970s was a period of economic stagnation in much of the Western world putting an end to the overall Post–World War II economic expansion. In New Zealand the 1970s was an era plagued by an economic pattern of stagnation, high inflation, rising prices and rising unemployment and high external debts and borrowing. In 1973 OPEC stopped selling oil to the United States. The embargo sent gas prices through the roof. Between 1973-1974, prices more than quadrupled. The embargo contributed to stagflation.

The answer to the stagflation was neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is not a new idea, the ideas of laissez faire or free markets have been the dominant economic philosophy for centuries. The 1920s were a period of a laissez faire philosophy. Laissez faire means being relatively free of government control or regulation.

Neoliberalism was part of a paradigm shift that followed the failure of the Keynesian consensus in economics to address the stagflation of the 1970s. Keynes' style of economics encouraged a more active role of the government in order to "manage overall demand so that there was a balance between demand and output". These ideas dominated mainstream economics in the post-war period and formed the mainstream of macroeconomic thought in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.

You continue to dig your hole deeper moka. I'm not sure if those are your words, or if you have lifted them from somewhere (probably should acknowledge them if you have), but it is clear neoliberal policies were a response to a situation that had turned to custard and that living standards were already in decline.

There is certainly a case to be made that neo-liberal policies exacerbated the problem by increasing the wealth gap/ power imbalance, but the cause of the economic woes of the '70s point far more to interventionism and protectionism alongside the shenanigans of the OPEC cartel.

The numbers lifted out of extreme poverty worldwide in the last 30 years suggest less interventionism has got some things right (I don't think Capitalism should be completely unfettered) but a side effect is a bigger wealth gap....have a look at the "Mathew Principle"....it would appear to be part of the nature of things.

SBQ
30-10-2020, 11:54 AM
You continue to dig your hole deeper moka. I'm not sure if those are your words, or if you have lifted them from somewhere (probably should acknowledge them if you have), but it is clear neoliberal policies were a response to a situation that had turned to custard and that living standards were already in decline.

There is certainly a case to be made that neo-liberal policies exacerbated the problem by increasing the wealth gap/ power imbalance, but the cause of the economic woes of the '70s point far more to interventionism and protectionism alongside the shenanigans of the OPEC cartel.

The numbers lifted out of extreme poverty worldwide in the last 30 years suggest less interventionism has got some things right (I don't think Capitalism should be completely unfettered) but a side effect is a bigger wealth gap....have a look at the "Mathew Principle"....it would appear to be part of the nature of things.

China alone would of been responsible of lifting their population out of poverty from 1980 to 2020 (an impressive feat within 40 years). And you know what? ALL THAT came from western trade. Yep the high purchasing power of the US consumers (US consumption) has basically lifted China out of poverty for most of the population to the point that they now produce the most millionaires around the world.

tim23
31-10-2020, 08:33 AM
You can't go on and off work - there are stand downs.

Only if you work more than 26 weeks plus holiday pay is assessed however most seasonal employers include the 8% holiday pay in to the hourly rate.

Panda-NZ-
31-10-2020, 02:46 PM
Muldoon PM from 1975-84 was an old-fashioned state interventionist.

The UK, which had been NZ's most important trade partner, joined the EEC (now the EU) in 1973. That had an important income generating impact for NZ. There was an urgent need to find new markets for our exports which then faced EEC tariffs and quotas.

Now they are banging down our door for a trade deal. Strange decision they made to leave the best trading arrangement in the world.

What can britain offer us these days. Maybe some more real estate agents and TV shows on sky..

Balance
01-11-2020, 07:38 AM
https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/300145697/average-auckland-bungalow-sells-for-19-million-500000-above-cv

Not a whisper from Cindy about skyrocketing house prices.

Enjoy, Labourites and watch the wealth gap opens ever wider under the team of incompetents. What you voted for - thanks as those who can reap huge capital gains benefits!

artemis
01-11-2020, 07:49 AM
https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/300145697/average-auckland-bungalow-sells-for-19-million-500000-above-cv

Not a whisper from Cindy about skyrocketing house prices.

Enjoy, Labourites and watch the wealth gap opens ever wider under the team of incompetents. What you voted for - thanks as those who can reap huge capital gains benefits!

Labour already set aside $400,000,000 for 'progressive home ownership'. The intention seems to be that the homeowners get money up front, one way or another, and pay it back over time.

So really taxpayers, it's like celery - zero calories. Except it will be more like taxpayer input to Kiwibuild, lots of calories.

Balance
01-11-2020, 08:10 AM
Labour already set aside $400,000,000 for 'progressive home ownership'. The intention seems to be that the homeowners get money up front, one way or another, and pay it back over time.

So really taxpayers, it's like celery - zero calories. Except it will be more like taxpayer input to Kiwibuild, lots of calories.

$400m builds less than 1,000 houses in NZ or less than 500 in Auckland these days - waiting list for homes run into the thousands.

So taxpayers will be tapped into for the tens of billions of dollars required to build state homes.

Plenty of money to be made, folks!

Just make sure you get your share - in fact, more than your share because future generations are going to have to pay for the shopaholic-debt-piling habits of Cindy's team of incompetents.

Balance
01-11-2020, 08:20 AM
And what is Cindy doing about the property market surging out of the reach of first home buyers and rents going up?

NOTHING - because she and her team of incompetents have not got a clue!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/123261225/absolutely-fed-up-nzs-property-market-will-take-more-than-lvrs-to-fix

"Given the fundamentals supporting the property market, Patterson said it was not really a bubble. The challenge was the widening gap in wealth between the 60-odd per cent of people who are homeowners, and the rest.

“For those that are locked out of the housing market at present, it is problematic. We’ve seen rents have actually still gone up across the country, and those people don’t benefit from the lower interest expense.”

iceman
01-11-2020, 08:34 AM
Labour already set aside $400,000,000 for 'progressive home ownership'. The intention seems to be that the homeowners get money up front, one way or another, and pay it back over time.

So really taxpayers, it's like celery - zero calories. Except it will be more like taxpayer input to Kiwibuild, lots of calories.

The good thing is they can fund it from their secret state house sales program :-)
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300146319/election-2020-labour-caught-selling-off-state-homes-to-tenants-after-rubbishing-national-policy

Balance
01-11-2020, 11:13 AM
The good thing is they can fund it from their secret state house sales program :-)
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300146319/election-2020-labour-caught-selling-off-state-homes-to-tenants-after-rubbishing-national-policy

As cynical & hypocritical as they come - Cindy & her team of incompetents.

Enjoy the ‘victory’, Labourites and watch the wealth gap widen further and further over the next 3 years. Then watch Cindy bugger off a d leave the mess for others to clean up.

justakiwi
01-11-2020, 11:35 AM
Yawn .... :sleep:

If you intend to carry on ranting for the next three years, you really need to come up with some new material.


As cynical & hypocritical as they come - Cindy & her team of incompetents.

Enjoy the ‘victory’, Labourites and watch the wealth gap widen further and further over the next 3 years. Then watch Cindy bugger off a d leave the mess for others to clean up.

Balance
01-11-2020, 11:45 AM
Yawn .... :sleep:

If you intend to carry on ranting for the next three years, you really need to come up with some new material.

Seriously, do you think Cindy can deliver on her many promises, especially of affordable homes for NZers?

artemis
01-11-2020, 11:52 AM
$400m builds less than 1,000 houses in NZ or less than 500 in Auckland these days - waiting list for homes run into the thousands.

So taxpayers will be tapped into for the tens of billions of dollars required to build state homes.

Plenty of money to be made, folks!

Just make sure you get your share - in fact, more than your share because future generations are going to have to pay for the shopaholic-debt-piling habits of Cindy's team of incompetents.

The $400 mill is not to build or buy homes. It is apparently for things like rent-to-buy and shared equity. I say 'apparently' because who knows.

I think we do know some things - for example private sector rent-to-buy schemes have been lucrative in the past for sellers when they recover ownership when the rent-to-buyers miss their contracted responsibilities. Fairly straightforward, but will be a whole lot trickier when lucky taxpayers fall over backwards to keep these recalcitrant households in their homes. So those household don't end up in tears on the 6pm news - bad bad bad optics.

justakiwi
01-11-2020, 12:02 PM
I said new material, not the same old regurgitated stuff we have had to listen to for months. The election is over. Jacinda and Labour won. Get over it. Have you seriously not got anything better to do with your life/time than drag this debate out for eternity? It is a glorious day - go take the dog for a walk, dig your veggie garden, water some flowers. Or maybe even surprise Mrs Balance with an afternoon bonk.

You will feel better, whichever option you choose. I promise.


Seriously, do you think Cindy can deliver on her many promises, especially of affordable homes for NZers?

Balance
01-11-2020, 12:12 PM
I said new material, not the same old regurgitated stuff we have had to listen to for months. The election is over. Jacinda and Labour won. Get over it. Have you seriously not got anything better to do with your life/time than drag this debate out for eternity? It is a glorious day - go take the dog for a walk, dig your veggie garden, water some flowers. Or maybe even surprise Mrs Balance with some “afternoon delight.”

You will feel better, whichever option you choose. I promise.

Thanks, justakiwi.

Matter of fact - I had a lovely 2 hours walk around Cornwall Park with Mrs Balance & my daughter this morning, then had lunch of pizza & salad (with honey mustard dressing), listened to and danced to a crooner**** with his saxophone playing sidekick with my daughter at the farmers market - life’s good!

It’s all about balance and enjoying the good life, right?

But sadly, as I type in my thoughts after reading the news of the day, I believe in my heart that those who voted for another 3 years of Cindy & her team of incompetents are doomed to see another 3 years of widening gap between those with properties & assets, vs those who are without. The youngsters and first home buyers are going to be the biggest casualties.

Why? Because leopards do not change their spots and this Cindy dog does not know how to hunt. She is a show dog manipulated & used by the power hungry incompetents.

Meanwhile ....

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300146866/election-2020-jacinda-ardern-and-greens-sign-deal-agreeing-to-agree-to-disagree

The old adage ‘keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer’ comes to mind. Cynical but effective!


****Was so lovely dancing to this uplifting tune (jazz style) :

Smile tho' your heart is aching
Smile even tho' it's breaking
When there are clouds in the sky
You'll get by

If you smile
Thro' your fear and sorrow
Smile and maybe tomorrow
You'll see the sun come shin-ing thro' for you

Light up your face with gladness
Hide ev-'ry trace of sadness
Altho' a tear may be ever so near
That's the time
You must keep on trying

Smile, what's the use of crying
You'll find that life is still worth-while
If you just smile

Sgt Pepper
01-11-2020, 01:12 PM
I know political hypocrisy is nothing new but the Greens agreement to disagree with the labour certainly raises the bar. We hold fast to our core values, indeed but we also would like to hold on to our ministerial salaries.!

fungus pudding
01-11-2020, 01:24 PM
I know political hypocrisy is nothing new but the Greens agreement to disagree with the labour certainly raises the bar. We hold fast to our core values, indeed but we also would like to hold on to our ministerial salaries.!

Indeed, and Labour would like to hold on to The Greens using our money.

Panda-NZ-
01-11-2020, 04:21 PM
Sir John did a deal with the maori party despite not needing them.

lots of taxpayer money funnelled into second-tier whanau ora schemes and charter schools.

RupertBear
01-11-2020, 08:50 PM
I said new material, not the same old regurgitated stuff we have had to listen to for months. The election is over. Jacinda and Labour won. Get over it. Have you seriously not got anything better to do with your life/time than drag this debate out for eternity? It is a glorious day - go take the dog for a walk, dig your veggie garden, water some flowers. Or maybe even surprise Mrs Balance with an afternoon bonk.

You will feel better, whichever option you choose. I promise.

OMG Justakiwiw I had to read that twice to make sure I had read it right and true enough you really did say BONK :eek2: My Sunday night is now ruined by the thought of Balance bonking :blush:

Balance
02-11-2020, 06:51 AM
OMG Justakiwiw I had to read that twice to make sure I had read it right and true enough you really did say BONK :eek2: My Sunday night is now ruined by the thought of Balance bonking :blush:

Haha, chill RupertBear - just think George Clooney & Jennifer Lopez 😜

Bjauck
02-11-2020, 07:09 AM
I said new material, not the same old regurgitated stuff we have had to listen to for months. The election is over. Jacinda and Labour won. Get over it. Have you seriously not got anything better to do with your life/time than drag this debate out for eternity? I don't always agree with Balance. However, in a democracy, the government should continuously be held to account for its actions and for its delivery of its platform promises.

For example, will it kick the can down the street again in relation to housing as it has already on a capital gains tax? To make itself electable it has basically become a National Party Lite


It is a glorious day - go take the dog for a walk, dig your veggie garden, water some flowers. Or maybe even surprise Mrs Balance with an afternoon bonk.

You will feel better, whichever option you choose. I promise. You are making a lot of assumptions there. Anyway, it always makes me chuckle when a poster makes a post suggesting that other posters should be doing something else!

fungus pudding
02-11-2020, 08:11 AM
I know political hypocrisy is nothing new but the Greens agreement to disagree with the labour certainly raises the bar. We hold fast to our core values, indeed but we also would like to hold on to our ministerial salaries.!

It's an agreement to 'agree to agree to disagree', according to the female half-leader. Fungus says - Well put lady.

jonu
02-11-2020, 08:12 AM
Haha, chill RupertBear - just think George Clooney & Jennifer Lopez ��

Or Steptoe and Enid Sharples

justakiwi
02-11-2020, 08:28 AM
Like I’m the only one here who makes wild assumptions. That’s funny.

Balance took my comments OK, so not sure why they put your jockeys in a knot.

You have a lovely day :)




You are making a lot of assumptions there. Anyway, it always makes me chuckle when a poster makes a post suggesting that other posters should be doing something else!

Sgt Pepper
02-11-2020, 08:43 AM
It's an agreement to 'agree to agree to disagree', according to the female half-leader. Fungus says - Well put lady.

I watched Sunday on TV One last night. One of the items covered was the $11miilion to the Green School. During the interview with the owners they were asked if they had met directly with Minister Shaw. Not directly, they disclosed, but via a Zoom video . I have issues with this. It is not, in my opinion, right ( or wise )that such direct lobbying occur which results in taxpayers money being dispersed.
He should not be a minister

Bjauck
02-11-2020, 08:52 AM
..

You have a lovely day :) Will do. I have just drawn up a new list of kitchen chores for "her indoors". I am expecting great meals today.

iceman
02-11-2020, 08:58 AM
I watched Sunday on TV One last night. One of the items covered was the $11miilion to the Green School. During the interview with the owners they were asked if they had met directly with Minister Shaw. Not directly, they disclosed, but via a Zoom video . I have issues with this. It is not, in my opinion, right ( or wise )that such direct lobbying occur which results in taxpayers money being dispersed.
He should not be a minister

I agree with you Sgt Pepper. I was quite shocked to hear about that on Sunday. In fact I think the whole thing is a fiasco and no Government money should be put forward for something that is simply an idea from wealthy greenies that have zero experience in running an education facility. Meanwhile the primary schools in the wider area have unsuitable buildings to work in.

justakiwi
02-11-2020, 09:30 AM
Funny man ;)


Will do. I have just drawn up a new list of kitchen chores for "her indoors". I am expecting great meals today.

moka
02-11-2020, 09:23 PM
I know political hypocrisy is nothing new but the Greens agreement to disagree with the labour certainly raises the bar. We hold fast to our core values, indeed but we also would like to hold on to our ministerial salaries.!Very smart move in my opinion for both Labour and the Greens. You can get a lot more done to advance your policies if you are a Minister rather than being in opposition. It would be a shame to waste James Shaw’s knowledge and experience. Politics is about negotiation and compromise. Seems to me that labelling it hypocrisy is based on who the parties are not on actually doing a deal. Your bias is showing.

moka
02-11-2020, 09:32 PM
And what is Cindy doing about the property market surging out of the reach of first home buyers and rents going up?

NOTHING - because she and her team of incompetents have not got a clue!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/123261225/absolutely-fed-up-nzs-property-market-will-take-more-than-lvrs-to-fix

"Given the fundamentals supporting the property market, Patterson said it was not really a bubble. The challenge was the widening gap in wealth between the 60-odd per cent of people who are homeowners, and the rest.

“For those that are locked out of the housing market at present, it is problematic. We’ve seen rents have actually still gone up across the country, and those people don’t benefit from the lower interest expense.”
Probably a few more people will start thinking like this person who made this comment about the above article:
… I’ve changed my mind, we need a capital gains tax. Urgently. It makes no sense that us income earners will pay high tax so the government can buy houses for those who can’t afford them while the so called investors, with many houses, who are largely causing the problem, don’t pay any tax on their profits.

winner69
19-11-2020, 02:09 PM
Momentum starting to build in getting CGT back on the agenda.

Somebody has got to people like Dominic Steven's from Westpac whose back touting it - even though the Bank prob not on favour.



Even the PM seems to be changing her minds

fungus pudding
19-11-2020, 02:43 PM
Probably a few more people will start thinking like this person who made this comment about the above article:
… I’ve changed my mind, we need a capital gains tax. Urgently. It makes no sense that us income earners will pay high tax so the government can buy houses for those who can’t afford them while the so called investors, with many houses, who are largely causing the problem, don’t pay any tax on their profits.

An ill informed comment. Investors certainly pay tax on their profits.

Aaron
20-11-2020, 04:13 PM
Momentum starting to build in getting CGT back on the agenda.

Somebody has got to people like Dominic Steven's from Westpac whose back touting it - even though the Bank prob not on favour.



Even the PM seems to be changing her minds

I wouldn't panic this guy may have a point.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/new-zealand-s-politicians-are-too-middle-class-to-tackle-our-biggest-problems/ar-BB1bbuFX?ocid=msedgntp

Yapping on about diversity and liberalism while doing nothing of any real substance is most likely.

I reckon labour won because they went one further than National. No capital gains tax, won't touch your nz super AND we will protect the oldies from co-vid (which National were a bit vague on)

I reckon a Jacinda govt will be very similar to a John Key govt very popular because they won't rock any boats.

Bjauck
21-11-2020, 06:35 AM
I wouldn't panic this guy may have a point.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/new-zealand-s-politicians-are-too-middle-class-to-tackle-our-biggest-problems/ar-BB1bbuFX?ocid=msedgntp

Yapping on about diversity and liberalism while doing nothing of any real substance is most likely.

I reckon labour won because they went one further than National. No capital gains tax, won't touch your nz super AND we will protect the oldies from co-vid (which National were a bit vague on)

I reckon a Jacinda govt will be very similar to a John Key govt very popular because they won't rock any boats.
Labour and National are only distinguishable under a magnifying glass.

There will come a time - in ten or fifteen years perhaps at current rate - when a point of inflection will be reached. When 50% of voters will have been priced out of home ownership or even the prospect of it. When electoral self-interest will mean that a general CGT will have to be introduced to broaden the tax base. Perhaps one that includes the family home in some deferred way too. The Coronavirus response by the RBNZ may have hastened the onset of that point of inflection. If you include those who have been priced out of upsizing/upgrading their exisiting homes, 50% of voters may have been priced out of the current market already.

Twenty years of inaction has led to a 'toxic' NZ housing market

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/300162200/twenty-years-of-inaction-has-led-to-a-toxic-nz-housing-market

macduffy
21-11-2020, 11:26 AM
I reckon labour won because they went one further than National. No capital gains tax, won't touch your nz super AND we will protect the oldies from co-vid (which National were a bit vague on)


Contributory issues, but Labour won so convincingly because of the Jacinda/covid effect.

Bjauck
22-11-2020, 08:52 AM
Switched post to the Labour Government 2020-23 thread.

tim23
16-12-2020, 07:59 PM
Seriously, do you think Cindy can deliver on her many promises, especially of affordable homes for NZers?

Well most of the voting public clearly did = get over it, you are in the minority

Baa_Baa
16-12-2020, 08:14 PM
Well most of the voting public clearly did = get over it, you are in the minority

We might be in the minority Tim but there’s no disputing that the current government really do need to deliver in this term. There’s no escaping that they know they have failed to deliver in the first term. The pressure is on all fronts to deliver on the promises. There’s no certainty that they will, governments come and go, while the administration does its best. Which sadly is rarely enough, as the promises are too large to be implemented in a term of government.

tim23
17-12-2020, 04:28 PM
We might be in the minority Tim but there’s no disputing that the current government really do need to deliver in this term. There’s no escaping that they know they have failed to deliver in the first term. The pressure is on all fronts to deliver on the promises. There’s no certainty that they will, governments come and go, while the administration does its best. Which sadly is rarely enough, as the promises are too large to be implemented in a term of government.

Looks like the economy is trucking along just nicely and many National voters are probably better off than they might have been if their lot had been running the show earlier this year.

fungus pudding
17-12-2020, 04:58 PM
Looks like the economy is trucking along just nicely and many National voters are probably better off than they might have been if their lot had been running the show earlier this year.

I doubt if National would have raised income tax to 39% over 170k. That hardly makes anyone better off. Not that National are 'my lot'.

Zaphod
17-12-2020, 05:09 PM
Looks like the economy is trucking along just nicely and many National voters are probably better off than they might have been if their lot had been running the show earlier this year.

As long as you ignore the massive intergenerational debt that has been accumulated due to the economic life-support system we've been living off for the last few months.

The debt was something like $55k per household last time I checked.

tim23
17-12-2020, 05:36 PM
I doubt if National would have raised income tax to 39% over 170k. That hardly makes anyone better off. Not that National are 'my lot'.

They would have opened the borders too soon and I never said they were your lot.

Balance
17-12-2020, 05:51 PM
As long as you ignore the massive intergenerational debt that has been accumulated due to the economic life-support system we've been living off for the last few months.

The debt was something like $55k per household last time I checked.

Plus the full blown housing disaster unfolding out there for first home buyers.

Joshuatree
17-12-2020, 05:52 PM
And baabaas failed to deliver is a trumpism; wrong ,ignorant and gormless, false, dumb. What perfect planet is he living on, Uranus?

Panda-NZ-
17-12-2020, 05:57 PM
As long as you ignore the massive intergenerational debt that has been accumulated due to the economic life-support system we've been living off for the last few months.

The debt was something like $55k per household last time I checked.

NZ super fund alone returned $11b over this and last term of govt plus $25b over National. All of that was really due to Labour too since Nats contributed $0.

But they sold assets worth billions leaving our kids with power companies in the ownership of Blackrock Funds Management.

Plus overseas ownership of land through the roof under sir john key. Let's never go back to an unproven and wishful set of policies for NZ.
50% result in FPP for Jacinda. Everyones a labourite now :)

Here's the proof I would say.

https://imgur.com/a/FqFEbzM

Balance
17-12-2020, 06:03 PM
NZ super fund alone returned $11b over this and last term of govt plus $25b over National. All of that was really due to Labour too since Nats contributed $0.
But they sold assets worth billions (power companies) leaving our kids with power companies which are increasingly in the ownership of American banks.

foreign ownership of land through the roof under Sir john key. Let's never go back there eh.

50% result in FPP for Jacinda. Everyones a labourite now :)

Only those dumb enough to vote for Cynical Cindy.

Baa_Baa
17-12-2020, 06:28 PM
And baabaas failed to deliver is a trumpism; wrong ,ignorant and gormless, false, dumb. What perfect planet is he living on, Uranus?

Facts Joshua, thanks for the insult. You on the gins again?

Panda-NZ-
17-12-2020, 06:36 PM
Looks like the economy is trucking along just nicely and many National voters are probably better off than they might have been if their lot had been running the show earlier this year.

Yep strong economy and no debt (NZ super fund net worth and the silver that has not been sold off yet means no net debt). Soon we'll have more assets than debt.

Michael Cullen was the best finance minister we have ever had and grant roberston will continue his legacy. :)

tim23
17-12-2020, 07:07 PM
Only those dumb enough to vote for Cynical Cindy.

Plenty of people voted Labour and they are not all dumb, in fact you may be the dummy.

jonu
17-12-2020, 08:09 PM
Yep strong economy and no debt (NZ super fund net worth and the silver that has not been sold off yet means no net debt). Soon we'll have more assets than debt.

Michael Cullen was the best finance minister we have ever had and grant roberston continues his legacy.

Let's hope Panda is nowhere near Treasury with this expertise on display.

dibble
17-12-2020, 09:31 PM
As long as you ignore the massive intergenerational debt that has been accumulated due to the economic life-support system we've been living off for the last few months.


Got a better idea? It was National who dropped tax to 33% then embarked on a borrowing spree to pay for stuff "oh, whoops, we'll balance the books next year, promise". Naive to think National wouldn't have borrowed as a response to covid either initially or eventually. As I recall their main plan was simply to open the borders. Smart.

Panda-NZ-
17-12-2020, 09:53 PM
The sweden approach was purshed for if I recall -- we should have gone for the herd immunity experience.

We should have subsidies for businesses with one employee or more regardless of need.
While Jacinda said let's not to both ideas and we're all better off for it.

iceman
17-12-2020, 11:07 PM
Yep strong economy and no debt (NZ super fund net worth and the silver that has not been sold off yet means no net debt). Soon we'll have more assets than debt.

Michael Cullen was the best finance minister we have ever had and grant roberston will continue his legacy. :)

What planet are you on ? NZ as a country is on track to increase debt by around 28% this year, all of it household and Government with minuscule amounts for corporates.

NZ Superfund is there for future liabilities, not for current out of control expenditure.

No debt ! Another Tui please

Panda-NZ-
18-12-2020, 12:04 AM
Bond holders are paying NZ in real terms because it's so safe. 0.5% months ago v 3% under National.

The increase value of the power companies and increased super fund gains are massive on the other hand. The balance sheet position may be better post-corona than pre-corona.
Remarkable achievement, thanks labour.

dobby41
18-12-2020, 07:11 AM
I doubt if National would have raised income tax to 39% over 170k. That hardly makes anyone better off. Not that National are 'my lot'.

Probably not - but Labour isn't either.
It's $180k and the 2% (which I an one) can afford it!

dobby41
18-12-2020, 07:13 AM
Seems some people here don't want to hear that we are doing relatively well compared to other, comparable, countries.
It doesn't fit the narrative that Labour will destroy the country.

fungus pudding
18-12-2020, 07:39 AM
Probably not - but Labour isn't either.
It's $180k and the 2% (which I an one) can afford it!

Sorry. You are right. I am one too along with a helluva lot more then 2%. Yes, I can afford it - but that is not the point. It is not a fair tax - plain and simple. I'm still shaking from Muldoon's 66% back in the 80s.

iceman
18-12-2020, 07:46 AM
Bond holders are paying NZ in real terms because it's so safe. 0.5% months ago v 3% under National.

The increase value of the power companies and increased super fund gains are massive on the other hand. The balance sheet position may be better post-corona than pre-corona.
Remarkable achievement, thanks labour.

OMG. Here is Treaury's forecast for you but don't let their facts stand in your way:

12150

Balance
18-12-2020, 08:07 AM
OMG. Here is Treaury's forecast for you but don't let their facts stand in your way:

12150

PandaNZ is typical of the warped mindset Labourites - the weak & dumb minded who cannot see Cynical Cindy for who she is - a manipulative economic ignorant hypocrite.

Trevor Mallard.

Housing disaster.

Ihumatao.

Hijab to insult & spite the oppressed Muslim women.

westerly
18-12-2020, 08:28 AM
OMG. Here is Treaury's forecast for you but don't let their facts stand in your way:

12150

Since when has an economic forecast become facts?

westerly

Balance
18-12-2020, 08:38 AM
Since when has an economic forecast become facts?

westerly

2020 numbers are actual.

And the numbers already show the economic woke cuckoo land that Labourites live in.

dobby41
18-12-2020, 11:08 AM
Sorry. You are right. I am one too along with a helluva lot more then 2%. Yes, I can afford it - but that is not the point. It is not a fair tax - plain and simple. I'm still shaking from Muldoon's 66% back in the 80s.

Many believe that no tax is fair - subjective.

Zaphod
18-12-2020, 12:07 PM
Got a better idea?

Yes, basically constrain the spending as much as possible. Two ideas that immediately spring to mind:
1. Better design of the wage subsidy. This has turned into a fiasco, with calls for it to be repaid voluntarily, so it obviously wasn't designed well in the first place.
2. Don't increase the minimum wage during a lockdown, especially when the tax payer is footing 90% of the wage bill for a huge proportion of the population.

That's many more ways.



It was National who dropped tax to 33% then embarked on a borrowing spree to pay for stuff "oh, whoops, we'll balance the books next year, promise".

I'm trying to understand the relevance of this statement. Are you saying that if the top tax rate had been kept at 39% we wouldn't have had to borrow?



Naive to think National wouldn't have borrowed as a response to covid either initially or eventually.

Yes, it would be. I haven't seen any arguments on this forum stating that the government shouldn't have borrowed.




As I recall their main plan was simply to open the borders. Smart.

Your recall is inaccurate.

Panda-NZ-
18-12-2020, 01:46 PM
We need to spend more given debt costs are so low. hundred year lows.


Yes, basically constrain the spending as much as possible. Two ideas that immediately spring to mind:
1. Better design of the wage subsidy. This has turned into a fiasco, with calls for it to be repaid voluntarily, so it obviously wasn't designed well in the first place.
2. Don't increase the minimum wage during a lockdown, especially when the tax payer is footing 90% of the wage bill for a huge proportion of the population.


I think pretty much every country has been more generous than us. Australia doubled their welfare across the board for six months as well as provided a more generous wage subsidy. So we have recieved great value for money.

Find me a country which has done better, you can't.

dobby41
18-12-2020, 01:58 PM
Why is this thread still running - there is no Labour/NZ First Govt anymore

jonu
18-12-2020, 03:02 PM
Why is this thread still running - there is no Labour/NZ First Govt anymore

I guess it has pertinence as to decisions made prior the election, but hopefully the 20-23 thread will prevail

Zaphod
18-12-2020, 03:17 PM
We need to spend more given debt costs are so low. hundred year lows.

No, we need to kick start the economy, but be careful of amounting vast sums of debt that successive generations will need to repay. Just because interest rates are currently low, does not mean that we should borrow asd much as possible. That would be irresponsible for any government.



I think pretty much every country has been more generous than us. Australia doubled their welfare across the board for six months as well as provided a more generous wage subsidy. So we have recieved great value for money..

That's not a logical argument though. Even if the premise is true (I haven't checked), it does not mean that we received great value for money, and it still does not invalidate argument around the wider issue of inefficient spending and burgeoning debt. Treasury has indicated a combination of higher taxes and lower public services will be required to balance the budget as best we can. The massive spending and borrowing has created a significant long-term problem, as would be expected.

Panda-NZ-
18-12-2020, 03:44 PM
No, we need to kick start the economy, but be careful of amounting vast sums of debt that successive generations will need to repay. Just because interest rates are currently low, does not mean that we should borrow asd much as possible. That would be irresponsible for any government.



That's not a logical argument though. Even if the premise is true (I haven't checked), it does not mean that we received great value for money, and it still does not invalidate argument around the wider issue of inefficient spending and burgeoning debt. Treasury has indicated a combination of higher taxes and lower public services will be required to balance the budget as best we can. The massive spending and borrowing has created a significant long-term problem, as would be expected.



Why? Debt can be both inflated away and grown out of in real terms. If you have inflation at 2% and real gdp at 3% then the impact of debt goes down by 5%. It's how Cullen halved debt during his time without any spending cuts but spending increases (which increase growth).

Austerity cuts reduce economic growth and inflation which increases NZ's debt to gdp.

tim23
18-12-2020, 09:19 PM
What planet are you on ? NZ as a country is on track to increase debt by around 28% this year, all of it household and Government with minuscule amounts for corporates.

NZ Superfund is there for future liabilities, not for current out of control expenditure.

No debt ! Another Tui please

So what planet are you on?

tim23
18-12-2020, 09:21 PM
2020 numbers are actual.

And the numbers already show the economic woke cuckoo land that Labourites live in.

Oh dear you still have it bad old fella - sad

Aaron
22-12-2020, 07:56 AM
Why? Debt can be both inflated away and grown out of in real terms. If you have inflation at 2%.

Wow, I was under the impression Panda-NZ was a caring left leaning type. Proposing the use inflation to take care of government debt is pretty heartless as we know it is the most vulnerable worst affected by inflation. To quote David Carey in a 1989 paper for the NZ reserve bank. Interesting that in 1990 they introduced targeted inflation. Tax/theft but not too much.

The inflation and tax system interaction also produces some arbitrary and unlegislated redistributions of wealth. Even when inflation is fully anticipated, groups in society which need to hold financial assets rather than real assets are disadvantaged; the elderly and first-home buyers fall into this category. When a previously unanticipated inflation is acknowledged and is thereafter expected to persist, real asset prices change and produce windfall gains for those whose portfolios happen to be more suitable in the new environment. Because the poor and unsophisticated members of society tend to be slower to appreciate the significance of the changes taking place, the emergence of a previously unanticipated but sustained inflation, such as New Zealand experienced in the 1970s and 1980s, is likely to interact with the tax system to make the distribution of wealth more unequal.
Fiscal drag and the non-indexation of some government benefit payments also causes unlegislated redistributions of wealth.
There are two main ways in which the economic distortions and wealth redistributions which result from the interaction and the nominal income tax system can be avoided. First, the income tax system could be converted to a real base, or secondly, government could ensure that there is no inflation. There may, however, be considerable administrative difficulties associated with converting the income tax system to a real base. If these difficulties are insurmountable, the main option left for avoiding the economic distortions and wealth redistributions caused by inflation is not to have inflation. This course is the one which has been pursued by Government

For the full paper as I have just got the bit that suits my argument.
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/ReserveBank/Files/Publications/Bulletins/1989/1989mar52-1carey.pdf?revision=41dbfdcf-db14-453d-80e7-1fe24e890678

Also FYI

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/139283/economics/what-is-the-difference-between-inflation-and-tax/

Inflation is preferable because those that can buy a house can protect themselves to some degree from this tax while the poor and vulnerable pay the biggest price. It is the NZ way very much like not taxing capital gains. Lucky we have a Labour government looking out for the poor and vulnerable. (That last line is sarcasm.)

Bjauck
23-12-2020, 12:13 PM
...
Inflation is preferable because those that can buy a house can protect themselves to some degree from this tax while the poor and vulnerable pay the biggest price. It is the NZ way very much like not taxing capital gains. Lucky we have a Labour government looking out for the poor and vulnerable. (That last line is sarcasm.) It should be easy enough to inflation index link term deposits and then only tax real interest earned. However the NZ investment and financial system pivots around protecting real estate investment.

Aaron
23-12-2020, 12:24 PM
It should be easy enough to inflation index link term deposits and then only tax real interest earned. However the NZ investment and financial system pivots around protecting real estate investment.

It might be better to let the market decide the price of capital rather than a central bank. No right thinking investor would accept an interest rate below the rate of inflation. Or a negative interest rate for that matter.

stoploss
23-12-2020, 01:17 PM
It might be better to let the market decide the price of capital rather than a central bank. No right thinking investor would accept an interest rate below the rate of inflation. Or a negative interest rate for that matter.
So the trillions of Euros & Yen in European and Japanese Govt bonds are "not right set " ?

Aaron
23-12-2020, 04:21 PM
So the trillions of Euros & Yen in European and Japanese Govt bonds are "not right set " ?

I would suggest if the ECB and JCB are printing billions in currency to buy them, to keep yields low then, yes.

I think the JCB is also buying corporate bonds and ETFs (to support the stock market). I think the JCB owns 8% of the Nikkei.

Do you think current interest rates reflect a good return for the risk being taken on?

Admittedly a country that prints its own currency can never go broke but the currency your bonds are printed in can devalue (or get inflated away). Why would central banks be buying government bonds? or another way why aren't investors buying government bonds instead. Perhaps the price of the bonds are not right set.

Bjauck
24-12-2020, 06:49 AM
It might be better to let the market decide the price of capital rather than a central bank. No right thinking investor would accept an interest rate below the rate of inflation. Or a negative interest rate for that matter. I guess during a pandemic there are those who think that bank deposits, with below inflation rate returns, are safer than buying shares in or lending to a business, that may struggle as a result of measures introduced to combat the as yet unresolved epidemic.

Aaron
24-12-2020, 10:45 AM
I guess during a pandemic there are those who think that bank deposits, with below inflation rate returns, are safer than buying shares in or lending to a business, that may struggle as a result of measures introduced to combat the as yet unresolved epidemic.

People are getting pushed out the risk curve to get yield but people in cash are losing badly when compared to the housing market and the stock market. Leverage will be amplifying those gains. The inflation deflation argument. Currently inflation is winning hands down. Ray Dalio goes so far as to say cash is dangerous and it has been for 2020 except for that brief moment in March when the stockmarket dropped and economists were predicting a 10% drop in house prices due to lockdowns.

I have no leverage and some cash so have missed the boat in 2020. It is possible that there will be a crash or deflation but this seems unlikely as in the housing market at least we have rampant inflation, if it is a frenzy then it may just be getting started and it will be well supported by monetary policy that now requires inflation to manage debt levels. Frustrating as I am still fighting the central banks and getting upset when I should just go with the flow and borrow what ever I can to buy another house.

I might be heading off track, so to bring it back, anything Labour say about their concerns for first home buyers is empty rhetoric unless they intend to address targeted inflation and monetary policy but from what I read we are too far down the rabbit hole to change now so I would suggest investing in whatever will do well in an inflationary environment.

disclaimer: following my advice can be dangerous to your financial health.

Bjauck
24-12-2020, 12:26 PM
You need to be reasonably wealthy and well-paid to even get the deposit and leverage necessary to enter the real estate market. So many people are excluded from sharing in all those leveraged capital gains. Labour's core support used to be from those who were not so wealthy. However I agree that the current after tax yield curve, has meant that those who are able to invest in assets, whose returns are mostly in the form of capital gains, are the beneficiaries of current policy and the system.

artemis
24-12-2020, 12:54 PM
You need to be reasonably wealthy and well-paid to even get the deposit and leverage necessary to enter the real estate market. So many people are excluded from sharing in all those leveraged capital gains. Labour's core support used to be from those who were not so wealthy....

The article at the below link is worth a glance - The benefits of rising wages and lower interest rates on mortgage payments for first home buyers have been more than wiped out by rising house prices.

Can't argue with that, but check out the tables in the article. They set out deposit required at 10% or 20% for typical first home buyers and prices in the lower quartile. Including years needed to save the deposit, and repayments as % of after tax pay.

The years to save are not zero, obviously, but are surprisingly realistic except perhaps for Queenstown and Auckland. Even then those locations are under 5 years to save 10% deposit, not that onerous if these households are determined and focused.


https://www.interest.co.nz/property/108495/benefits-rising-wages-and-lower-interest-rates-mortgage-payments-first-home-buyers