Labour / NZ First Government

[fungus pudding]

I’m sorry. In the context of my post I didn’t think I needed to explain “wages”. Obviously I do so here goes.

Lets take two workers “A” and “B”

Before Working For Families they both worked 8 hours a day, five days a week and made 500 widgets each. Each worker took home $500 in their pay.

Then WWF came in. Employee B has 1 child so that entitles him, to lets say $100 extra. So now you have Employee A taking home $500 for his 500 widgets and Employee B taking home $600 for his 500 widgets. Net cost per widget has gone up. Employee B is no more productive but there is a greater cost.

It gets worse. Say Employee B takes a day off without pay. So he only produces 400 widgets. That week Employee A takes home $500 for his 500 widgets and Employee B takes home $600 for his 400 widgets. See the problem?

But there is a perversion as well. Say Employee B does 8 hours overtime and produces 600 widgets. He gets paid an extra $100 for his labour. But because he gets paid more gross he gets less WWF - lets call it $100. So now we have employee A taking home $500 for his 500 widgets and Employee B $600 for his 600 widgets. He gets nothing for his increase in productivity. So what does Employee B do – of course he doesn’t work overtime.

Do you see where I am going with this?

Now lets say we ditch WWF. And lets say Employee A wants to start a family and Employee A has figured it costs $100 a week to have a child.

He has a few options. One is to work more hours and increase his productivity. Kinda good. Except he is worker harder not smarter – that’s not productive.

So instead he decides to educate himself a bit more, upskill, train and get a better job,

Lo and behold he is now part a higher wage higher skill economy

I think WWF should be WFF, unless you mean W#nkers with families.

[minimoke]

Except that's not true. Both take home $500 from the employer, then one gets $100 tax credit from the govt. Employers cost has not risen.

You are being obtuse. The issue being discussed is productivity. The cost of producing the widgets has gone up. (You do under stand that government doesnt have a fairy powered money generator - the $100 paid has to come from somewhere)

[minimoke]

If they were serious they would also stop foreigners from purchasing a site for a new home. It ain't a shortage of sticks and bricks that makes for low housing stock. It's the appropriately zoned land to plonk the sticks on.

The other issue is that there is no shortage of houses in NZ. Its where the population wants to be relative to where the houses are which is another problem. (No shortage of houses in Christchurch and many other regions areas in NZ).

If govt was serious they would come up with policy to get people out of Auckland and into the regions (Would help solve lots of other problems as well - transport / infrastructure / teacher shortage etc)

[iceman]

Another tick for the Govt.

Foreign house buyer ban is law

And now we just need a CGT and all will be fixed, just like Australia (and other countries) where they have both of these and all the same issues with housing. Passing this law hasn't fixed any perceived problems so don't celebrate yet

[Bjauck]

The other issue is that there is no shortage of houses in NZ. Its where the population wants to be relative to where the houses are which is another problem. (No shortage of houses in Christchurch and many other regions areas in NZ).

If govt was serious they would come up with policy to get people out of Auckland and into the regions (Would help solve lots of other problems as well - transport / infrastructure / teacher shortage etc)

The current situation is the result of decades of poorly planned infrastructure and residential land development in areas where people (both new arrivals and existing residents) want to live. There was precious little planning to cope with the result of immigration policies.

Who will pay for policies encouraging the development of regions?

[Raz]

The current situation is the result of decades of poorly planned infrastructure and residential land development in areas where people (both new arrivals and existing residents) want to live. There was precious little planning to cope with the result of immigration policies.

Who will pay for policies encouraging the development of regions?

Who will pay...the same people who are paying for Auckland...all of us!!

[fungus pudding]

The current situation is the result of decades of poorly planned infrastructure and residential land development in areas where people (both new arrivals and existing residents) want to live. There was precious little planning to cope with the result of immigration policies.

Who will pay for policies encouraging the development of regions?

Shane Jones will fix it - planting trees.

[Bjauck]

Who will pay...the same people who are paying for Auckland...all of us!!

Who has been paying for Christchurch since the quakes?
Auckland businesses and individuals pay a good whack in taxes, rates and now the regional petrol tax.

I am guessing regional development would have to be cross-subsidised by Aucklanders too. If there are tax concessions for regional businesses and developers then Aucklanders would have to make up that shortfall too

[minimoke]

Who has been paying for Christchurch since the quakes?

Just so you know, we didn't ask for earthquakes. If we had a choice we would have said "don't come here" (and in answer to your question a goodly dollop has come from insurance companies, local rate payers, and insurance policy holders through their excesses))

[minimoke]

Shane Jones will fix it - planting trees.

As long as they are Aborogen sourced trees I back him to the hilt.