Thats no surprise. They have figured the cost of labour can be replaced by more efficient technology. I bet those now unemployed people in the regions would sooner have a wage than no wage at all.
Printable View
I'm guessing most of the branches closing used to be regional Trustbanks. We were looking at the Trustbank Super scheme many years ago, it was a good one. Staff and clients got the same deal I think. Westpac took over and increased the fee structure a lot, at least for customers.
I had dinner in Paihia last night and was trying to place where I had seen the Maori woman sitting at the next table (with 3 other diners). It wasn't until I saw one of the other diners was Andrew Little that I twigged she was a reporter on Maori issues. First thought was that Andrew was in the north for Shane Jones annual wingding, but of course, no doubt he is already in preliminary meetings with Waitangi day this week.
He'd be a useful MP to have up there. I wonder how Don Brash's speech will go down.
A Herald reporter produces a balanced article looking at the pros and cons of industry-wide settlements being proposed.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12199711
Isn't this a pretty stupid discussion? So - lets pay everybody say 20% more. Should get everybody across the so called living wage threshold. Great. Products obviously need to become dearer - lets say by 20%. Obviously - higher paid people pay higher taxes, i.e. everybody has while nominally more money less purchasing power in their pockets.
Everybody is poorer - but the government benefits from the automatically rising taxes (remember our progressive and not inflation adjusted taxrates). Oh, I see where this leads - Labour likes poor people and wants to create more poverty - presumably to counter it with higher benefit payouts and increased welfare dependancy.
Clever strategy ...
more a death spiral ... don't forget that the govenrment takes every round a higher tax rate ...
I smell a rat by the second paragraph. No business owner should be compelled to think they need to pay a "living wage" which is some arbitrary number dreams up by who knows. Its a number that is obviously fraught given it does not take into account city / region. Palmerston North would arguably be a reasonably cheap place to live. Why should someone there get $20 against the person living in Auckland? And it doesn't take into account family status - have a family get Working For Families). The bar owner simply needs to pay a wage he can afford to pay that the employee is prepared to accept - it is not the bar owners issue on how the employee lives or how that wage gets spent. The best way to pay staff more is to increase profits - which means keeping a tight reign on costs.
As for the rest. Well we need to get over the notion of "fair" pay. Life isn't fair - that's a simple fact. The go-getters understand this by doing what they can to beat the odds. The lazy wil just moan and expect everyone else to pay for their poor decisions. And thats not fair on everyone else.
These people are clueless. What would a person sooner have. An individual employer who pays $19 an hour for 40 hours work a week, week after week. Or an industry wide pay $20 where employers will reduce hours and lay people off and spend money on technology.
Dumbbells like HDPA need to understand that employers don't hate paying more than they have to. You don't see all employers paying the minimum wage which is all they have to pay. If employers thought they could pay just minimum wage doesn't she think they would? No! The smart employers understand that you get what you pay for. How well did Transit do when its employees resigned? not very well I bet!
Yes the 'living wage' is an artificial construct. In its second year the calculation was redone using the original inputs. Oh no, too high, so they arbitrarily reduced the calculation.
The Treasury has reported that there are two main beneficiaries of the 'living wage'. Young single workers and the government coffers (due to increased tax take and reduced government transfers).
I'm not sure how that works. PAYE would stay the same as its income between $14,000 and $48,000 so extrs isn't much - at best $1200. So that leave 15% gst. But a companies profit will be less so the 15% gain is offset by the 33% loss ($2310)in corporate tax.
And how do they work out if a person works 35 hours a week or 40 0r 45?