SUM - Summerset Group

[winner69]

Yes its so pathetic. Goalposts will have to be shifted as bull has suggested and the returns may be a little less in future. The staff do such an amazing job(generally; i do see some pretending to care though) and get shafted for it; not valued at all,an offensive rort. At least they aren't being paid peanuts anymore (no credit to SUM)so hopefully the care will be even better now. So yes Roger sorry to rain on your sweet smelling money parade; but less returns and more humanity is a good balance.

It would be nice to have less returns and more humanity ....but you know that's not the way the game is played

As long as greedy shareholders demand excessive returns this will the way. Sad eh

Corporates aren't benevolent societies

[Joshuatree]

They wont have a choice imo w69,the Labour govt will though.

[BlackPeter]

They wont have a choice imo w69,the Labour govt will though.

LOL - not a wise threat to make on an investor forum, but good to hear from the horses mouth.

[Joshuatree]

Whoops apologies for the politics slip up folks; but you get my drift.

[dobby41]

Well said. The issue as I see it is that the sentiment is fine, lets pay Kiwi workers another $7 an hour, but for round the clock 3 shifts a day 24/7 care in a dementia or hospital ward that's another $1,176 per week x number of staff on 24/7 duty plus extra cleaners wages e.t.c.. Someone has to pay, the taxpayer or user pays, its really that simple. Who is going to pay ? All nice and sweet to talk about the theory of paying New Zealanders a decent wage but how do service providers provide that service without going broke like some small private ones already have ?

So the answer is to pay some sectors of society poorly.
Seems to harp back to the good old days of the 1800's.

Of course, if they are paid poorly then they get more welfare - the Govt pays to top things up.
Sounds like Corporate welfare in stealth.

[Beagle]

The bottom line is someone has to pay for good quality late stage care, corporations are not charities.

[dobby41]

The bottom line is someone has to pay for good quality late stage care, corporations are not charities.

So the carer (the lowest paid worker) should pay rather than the person getting the care (if they have assets over the designated maximum)?
Seems a bit unfair to me really.
Fortunately I'm not a carer and, frankly, wouldn't take the job if you paid me all the tea in China.
I think people like that are worth their weight in gold!

[Beagle]

My opinion - The Govt need to be looking at stepping up to the plate if they want caregivers to be paid the sort of wages that have been outlined. The present weekly rates paid for late stage care won't be anywhere near enough.

On another subject - I see bullish "fighting" ? talk by JC at yesterday's Ellerslie opening. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...y+28+July+2017

[dobby41]

My opinion - The Govt need to be looking at stepping up to the plate if they want caregivers to be paid the sort of wages that have been outlined. The present weekly rates paid for late stage care won't be anywhere near enough.

I thought that the Govt was funding in increase?
Is this not going to happen?

[dobby41]

On another subject - I see bullish "fighting" ? talk by JC at yesterday's Ellerslie opening. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...y+28+July+2017

Does anyone know if retirement village units are included in the housing stats?
I have a feeling that they aren't and are part of the missing component expaining why we aren't as short of houses as we seem to think.

There is no doubt that retirement villages play a vital 'efficient' housing role.