Hat tip: Utopia from Salary.Com
| Family failures | Th… on Family failures | |
 | Heather Adam on Family failures |
 | kevn on Taxing talk |
| Taxing talk | The In… on Taxing talk | |
 | pdm1946 on Taxing talk |
| Guinness goes well w… on Guinness goes well with l… |
Kiwi Blog Inquiring Mind No Minister PointOfOrderNZ Lindsay Mitchell Cactus Kate Valerie Davies Oamaru Life Karl du Fresne Stephen Franks Bassett Brash & Hide Not PC WHatSheSaidNZ No Punches Pulled Croaking Cassandra Barbar’s meaty issues Rivetting Kate Taylor Uptown Farm Barrie Saunders Quoteunquotenz Blog the Globe Armstrong on Politics Breaking Views Agrarian Offsetting Behaviour Autism & Oughtimsms visible hand Stats Chat Macdoctor NZ’s Got Talent interest.co.nz Bowalleyroad Dim Post Election results Story People Liberty Scott Open Parachute Sciblogs Liberation YourNZ Imperator Fish Life Behind the Iron Drape PM of NZ Something Should Go Here Pundit kiwipolitico Watching Brief Stellar Cafe Oamaru Opera House Keeping Stock Dave Gee life from right field Latitude 44
Homepaddock 
Then there’s the revenge thats also so important.
Just looking at a friend’s facebook page where she was told by Miss to drop her off further away from school so no one saw Mum. Mum promptly drove to the school gates let off surly daughter and sang out in a loud voice “LOVE YOU!”.
These days my wife gets quiet pleasure feeding the grandees bright coloured lollies before the parents come to pick them up.
JC
LikeLike
I wonder how much a father is worth on the same basis?
LikeLike
The same – equal pay for equal work.
LikeLike
Unfortunately you can’t calculate a father’s contribution very easily.. he’s only there for a few (waking) hours before and after work and doesn’t necessarily have much to do with the child relative to mum.
Rather its his relationship with mum that the child sees more than anything and what he represents of the outside world. I kind of think that dad closes the security circle for the family and the argument is how big is that arc he closes.
JC
LikeLike
JC – I took Bob’s question to mean how much would the work of a stay-at-home father be worth.
I agree about the importance of a father’s relationship with his children’s mother. As John Wooden said, “The best thing a father can do for his children is to love their mother.”
LikeLike
The value of parenting is huge and involves both parents. If we do not do well by our kids to prepare them to succeed in life, our future is stuffed. When our children were young my wife and I decided to both drop to part time so that we could share the parenting and our kids would have less time in care.
With twice as many woman graduates each year than men we should consider the parent with the most earning potential could put in the most hours when children are young, and it could be the mum. I personally know quite a number of men who are the main stay at home parent because their wife can earn more.
We should really support parents to be good parents when bringing up children. I actually think only a very small percentage look at the benefit as a career choice and the statistics support that. However there should be an expectation that good parenting is occurring and the right support is available. 60% of those on the DPB had been married before and, given our shocking domestic violence statistics, many have good reason to seek support.
Click to access 130402%20CPAG%20Myths%20and%20Facts.pdf
LikeLike
So those who have the children they can afford and plan their lives to achieve that goal and provide all they would wish to their spawn, should subsidise through their taxes those too thick, lazy or irresponsible who create tax consumers with no prospect of any chance of a stable family environment using multiple sires who are candidates to commit infanticide with children of another sire.
At least there appears to be a growing understanding of the fact that welfare is increasingly a problem and less of the once idealistic solution it set out to become a century ago.
Welfare too often sends the wrong signals as to behaviour in human endeavour.
Society is closer to understanding the destructive aspects of welfare while socialists are wedded to it as it continues to create a support base easily motivated by a vague threat that their opponents will remove it as a life support system.
LikeLike
That is a slogan GD, with elements of truth, like all good propaganda – it is not welfare per se that is destructive,
Rather it is the loss of the concept of the nuclear family as the inviolable atomic building block of civil society that is the major cause of our problems.
No fault divorce was the beginning of the end, The lack of shame over illigitimacy etc has added to the damage and of course the abomination of gay “marriage” which seperates the reproductive elements from the institution and the responsibilities assigned to each of the parents of a child which was the core meaning of the institution is the latest assault
Significant cultural problems subsidized by welfare is not the problem of welfare itself – which in a humane society is necessary
LikeLike
How many young couples these days consider marriage an “institution” with “assigned” responsibilities?
I don’t know any.
LikeLike
What a surprise that you don’t know any Tracey – not!
Marriage has been reduced to an optional banality in 21st century Western culture, a trite ceremony with zero real meaning.
It is why the West is dying, drowning in a sea of vapidity and ever increasing debt while partying like there is no tomorrow in an orgy of hedonism and self indulgence.
When my daughter got married, before both she and we got married we received hours and hours of instruction on what marriage meant, how it was an everlasting commitment, requiring sacrifice and what the duties of the parties to that commitment were.
And there was lots of talk of children and raising the raising of them.
And those that raise children are those who will inherit the earth
LikeLike
I am forced to hold my ground Andrei as it “is” welfare per se that is destroying our societal fabric.
When “The State” usurps a local communities role in looking out for the disadvantaged on the spurious meme that “the State’ is somehow better, fairer, and better resourced then it is the disconnect that admits the loss of what being a member of “society” means.
Self worth, personal responsibility, pride in ones self, honour, commitment, fidelity, loyalty et al are suddenly diminished and depersonalised as The State is not a living feeling loving caring entity.
The State is just a source of cash as if that will “fix” anything worthwhile.
Yes My belief can be described as “slogans” but that does not make those beliefs any less.
When I married over half a century ago it could have been suggested it was at the insistence of society as our union had procured a child a little ahead of schedule but the entire timing thing had arisen as a result of difficulties in the closest involved members of that society ie parents, placing barriers to our union on totally false beliefs as to our wishes and ‘maturity’
I still recall my Father blurting out “it wont last” when informed of our intention to become engaged. Mind you he may still be proved right but some 55 years and counting the odds do not favour his prediction.
We had no counselling, no lectures from a benighted clergy, no reminding of what “marriage’ MEANT we were in love and we still very much are.
We trust each other, we are the very best friend either has and our values and commitment are an extension of those tenets of our partnership.
I have a theory and history has been remarkably succinct in so often providing supportive evidence for me to still believe its application.
” the more expansive the ceremony and moment of a wedding, the greater the fuss and prominence of the carnival, the odds of a lasting and loving union diminish.”
I have attended some very lavish nuptials where the Marriage barely survives the deconstruction of the Marquee. One such ‘affair’ (advisedly) was in a bit of trouble when the groom and the chief bridesmaid did a sort of rehearsal after the runthrough two nights before the nuptials and what a grand wedding that was.
LikeLike
Well good for you Andrei. However a good and happy marriage, for many couples, is not dependent upon hours and hours of indoctrination on someone else’s view of what their relationship should be. My parents have tried poking their noses in a few times but it quickly became apparent that they knew much less about marriage than I did despite having far more experience. So they were shown the door in regard to that particular topic.
I will let my children follow their instincts and make their own mistakes so that they may also own their success in life. If they come for advice I will give it where I’m able. If they make mistakes then I will forgive them and will not “shame” them for being human eg. getting their timing wrong. If they choose a partner of the same sex I will not judge them if they are following their instincts and what feels right to them. If they choose not to have children then that will be fine too – their choice, not mine.
LikeLike
I know it is a link to my blog but it does support some of what Andrei is saying and explains why it isn’t welfare that is causing social decay, but our abandonment of the social contract that is the basis for humane governance: http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2015/05/nzs-social-democracy-leadership-ends.html
LikeLike
No GD – you are obsessing over a symptiom of a deep cultural malaise.
Look at what Tracey wrote
She is wrong of course – the poison that our kids are fed on TV (and at school) has not generally taken root among Muslim kids, Indian Kids etc some perhaps have been sucked in to these pernicious and destructive things but not the majority.
Our culture is rotten to the core but you are so used to swimming in the sewer that you don’t notice the stench anymore.
LikeLike
I’m obsessing, LOL
LikeLike
Andrei, you and GD are both right. Welfare is one of the key factors that has broken down the values in society.
When children are seen as a source of income by women who are then preyed on by tomcatting thugs you know something is awry. The results – Nia Glassie, Kahui twins, etc. etc But these are only the tip of the iceberg that make the news. We have incentivised the breeding of an underclass.
I worked with a wonderful Ngati Porou lady. She was always upset following a trip home. She would talk of 6 year old relatives whose ambition in life was to get their own benefit…
LikeLike
We don’t live in a perfect world GD, never have, never will.
And nobody chooses the circumstances into which they are born.
But we can make the world more liveable for those we share the planet with – especially those who do not share our blessings – which are manifest.
And the blessings we have derive from living in a relatively stable, though imperfect society, which is this way because we have developed social structures and norms – not because we are inately superior to other human beings because we are not
And these norms persist because they are handed down through the generations, from parents to children.
But if these structures and norms break down New Zealand will end up looking like Somalia.
What we have to do IMHO is to raise people up – to look beyond themselves and their ephemeral earthly pleasures and to see the point of their existence is something bigger than fulfilling their carnal desires,
And how we do this is by acting as role models, and supporting those things that bring stability to society – things like strong marriages and strong families and decrying those things that undermine them
Like poliiticians whoring for votes at the Big Gay Out, a festival celebrating sexual hedonism.
Over three hundred abortions will be performed in NZ this week, thats three hundred New Zealanders who never will be – same next week and the week after that.
The most vunerable murdered before they had a chance of life because they stand in the way of their mothers fulfillment and their fathers, if they know will not step up to the plate and take responsibility for their offspring and the mothers of them
Here prepare to be depressed
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/big-kids/tweens-to-teens/68068346/how-online-porn-is-warping-boys-behaviour-with-girls
I make no apologies for fighting against the darkness even if I seem to be obsesssed
LikeLike
Paranormal wrote
Tracey wrote
The Ngati Porou children are modeling the adults in their life
My children are modeling the adults in their life
My “child” subject to “indoctination” is of course a nurse with a master degree whose children are extremely unlikely to be dependent upon benefits at anypoint in their childhood and when their time to raise their own will, God willing, manage to do so without Government financial assistance – nothing is certain of course but they are far more likely to acheive this than the future children of the
Ngati Porou six year olds.
LikeLike
Exactly Andrei
LikeLike
This is recent solid research with no political motive from the Salvation Army.
Click to access 20150511SAMixedFortunesReport_0.pdf
Here is part of the summary:
“This growth model (Government’s) has, however, shown little or no regard for distributional issues. There is no indication within the media material surrounding the Business Growth Agenda that any thought has been given to how the wealth and additional incomes created by business growth will be shared. In addition, there appears to have been little or no thought given to the regional distribution of any economic growth and improved prosperity and certainly no attention paid to the existing disparities between regions.”
One of our big problems is wealth distribution, a small percentage of New Zealanders are capturing the wealth of the country for themselves and not recognizing the productivity and value of those below. Beneficiary numbers are dropping but the number of working poor is growing. It isn’t welfare that is the issue (unless you include the growing cost of superannuation) but paying living wages to families that desperately need them. Small and medium sized businesses tend to pay well above the minimum wage, the larger, corporate employers tend to dominate with low wages and zero hour contracts etc.
LikeLike
DK – that is what is wrong. Redistribution of wealth that you leftists want is actually the root cause of the problem. I thought you agreed that Welfare for Working Families is a part of the problem distorting the market.
As for paying the so called ‘living wage’ is just another distortion – attempting to subsidise jobs that are otherwise uneconomic to pay at higher levels.
LikeLike
DaveK to suggest that the salvation army is not political is laughable as too often their public utterances invariably propose income redistribution in one form or another when it is wealth creation that sustains such opportunity that is required, A larger cake if you like.
That said I laud their selfless work in helping those who fall to get up again but such actions do not imbue them with any ability to form valid political views on improving the lot of humanity in the real world.
” a small percentage of New Zealanders are capturing the wealth of the country”,
Total socialist envy based bollocks.
A small percentage of New Zealanders are creating the wealth of the country that socialists see as vote bribing currency once they steal it from those creators as taxes, Levies, rates, fees, and any other of the myriad legal rorts they employ to perpetrate their ‘grand larceny’.
It is so easy to attack and erode the message that trickle down and wealth redistribution will make for all to be better off when the truth is that some, probably far too many will merely destroy any wealth they gain without effort by wasting it on junk food , poor personal choices and throwaway garbage that looks shiny and attractive but will do absolutely nothing to improve their lot.
How many socialists would be so manipulative around those they wish to gift money to if that action removed the right to vote on the grounds of conflict of interest.
Such a realistic acceptance of political vote influence and its subsequent banning would see a dramatic dropping of the faux concern for the so called ‘in poverty’.
LikeLike
If we are going to quote the Sallies then the full report would be useful so we can see what is hard data and what is political cant..
Click to access 20150211SOTN2015%20update%20WEB.pdf
On the whole the Sallies are happy with the state of the nation.. they report 21 social data points and give a positive rating for 17 and a slight negative for 4.
By any reckoning that’s an outstanding result.
JC
LikeLike
“A small percentage of New Zealanders are creating the wealth of the country that socialists see as vote bribing currency once they steal it from those creators as taxes, Levies, rates, fees, and any other of the myriad legal rorts they employ to perpetrate their ‘grand larceny’.”
What a load of distorted garbage, Gravedodger. It isn’t just the top 10% that are creating the wealth. You obviously see no value in the work done by truck drivers, farm workers, nurses, roadworkers, cleaners, construction workers, forestry workers, fishermen etc.
Forestry workers are a good example of a group of workers who work long hours in dangerous conditions and low pay to support one of our highest earning exports. Over thirty have died on the job over the last 6 years. All of them paid tax.
For you to support wealth capture, through extraordinary capital gain that involves no productive work and the children of rich parents having greater privileges than others more in need, is blinkered in the extreme.
Those who work hard should see a reasonable return for that work whether they are a manager or on the shop floor and I am not against more pay for more responsibility, skills or qualifications. However even those sweeping a floor and doing it well, 8 hours a day five days a week should be able to live on their income if that is the extent of their ability.
You don’t seem to understand that a good deal of the wealth creation at the moment is not through hard work but having enough money to invest in property. Those already wealthy can easily create more wealth and there is less upward mobility now than ever before. Even if you work hard it is more likely if you start poor you will remain poor and not everyone has the skills or ability to run their own business or increase their qualifications. We have amongst the lowest pay in the OECD for graduates too.
There is not enough investment into the productive sector and the very rich generally pay minimal tax. Many businesses now have wages subsidised through Working for Families, have their carbon emissions subsidised by the Government (and profit from them through using cheaper credits from E. Europe) and pay minimal tax. Remember tax fraud and white collar crime costs the country billions in lost revenue.
You can’t tell me that banks deserve every cent they earn and their CEOs actually earn their extreme salaries. ANZ New Zealand earned over $4 million last year ($77,000 per week, $15,000 a day). ANZ in Australia have taken over many farm loans in Australia and changed the terms so that the farmers can’t meet the repayments and then are forced into foreclosure. The farms are sold off below value for quick profits. This isn’t good business and the bank is corrupt.
The businesses I feel sorry for are the SMEs who tend to pay well, care about their staff, pay the tax they owe and many employers are living moderately themselves so that their staff get paid. I am not talking about them.
What you guys also don’t seem to understand is that low wages and poverty actually has an economic cost, child poverty is said to cost the Government $5-6 billion a year (health costs, remedial education, social welfare support…). Working for Families and the accommodation supplement is costing us around $3 billion a year. These are large sums that are crippling our economy.
LikeLike
Third last para above should read “The ANZ New Zealand CEO…”
LikeLike
DaveK repeating your socialist mantras does not make them anymore credible.
10% was your construct maybe I should have said ‘a minority of New Zealand Citizens’.
Your introduction of inflating property values as in some way the fault of me and likeminded glass full people is a total red herring, the main driver for that problem can be laid directly at the feet of socialist planners and local government polies who want to interfere in the market.
You display a serious lack of commercial understanding when you suggest that the Banks handling of drought ravaged rural land holders in Australia is wealth creation, LOL
Low wages, you must be joking minimum wage rules destroy jobs by elevating the cost of the worker beyond the value the work creates.
Leave Poverty out of it, your socialist interpretation of poverty, based on someone in Auckland who cant afford to pay a rent that would be easily affordable for someone sweeping floors in Gore has nothing relevant to this discussion.
Such arrant economic nonsense is just compost.
Your introduction of forestry deaths is obtuse, a very complicated scenario that has facets of poor attitudes, risk taking, substance abuse, lack of awareness of personal safety and occasionally plain bad luck.
Sheesh Dave 10 people died over the weekend in a little over 40 hours on our State Highways and no contribution from rapacious and money hungry rich pricks as yet reported as causal factors.
Your last para reveals a glimmer of comprehension with the market and income outcomes from the pervasive interference of Working for families.
Where is the necessity for an employer to pay more in wages when the taxpayers including themselves will make the pay up to what socialists decree is needed. Of course it totally ignores the economic drivers of location, rents, housing costs with the communistic one size fits all. at least the rent assistance welfare is a little more targeted but remind us again whose election bribes kicked that destructive economic game off.
LikeLike
Andrei, it is not as simple as you are making out and I’m sure you know it. But you have an agenda to push. In that vein you are not unlike a politician. Please don’t take that as a criticism. I like most of the politicians I’ve met and they are, for the most, part well-meaning.
“…nobody chooses the circumstances into which they are born. But we can make the world more liveable for those we share the planet with – especially those who do not share our blessings – which are manifest.”
That is mildly condescending. I saw a fair bit of condescension growing up – especially towards my mother – and it is not very helpful. The disadvantaged need opportunities, (including lowly paid job opportunities) in order to get a start, and they need to be free from socioeconomic discrimination more than anything else. The last thing they need is a kindly ‘there-there’ pat on the head from someone on a higher perch.
I am the child of parents who were a cleaner (mother) and a father who had variable employment mixed with periods of no income at all. He had great difficulty holding down a permanent full-time position (I know the reasons but won’t go into them). Mum was a hard worker but didn’t earn much. The State was expected to pick up the slack but it didn’t. The Labour Party, circa mid-1980s, was supposed to be our saviour but it wasn’t. The State cannot “care” no matter how much Dave wishes it to. It’s a thing and only people can actually feel and care for others.
My parents had a tumultuous relationship and divorced when I was about 12 years old. I was repeatedly told during childhood that I was useless, would never amount to anything, and would “never hold down a job”. That was my mother’s frustration with Dad. Their children, however, have done better. All are in stable relationships, have stable jobs, and have/are raising strong families. Your daughter holds a Masters degree as do I – despite having had very different role models.
I have also been on the dole and know what it feels like to be in complete despair over the future but I also learned that it is not impossible to make a comeback in spite of family circumstances. Good role models are everywhere. They do not have to be parents or even family. Good role models are positive, and hopeful, and they totally believe in us, the “earthly” and “carnal” ones, no matter what. If they have their doubts they don’t show them. They see beyond all that is obvious and superficial about a person into the true individual self that hides inside – no matter how deeply buried it is. I am fortunate to have had some very good role models. And as an adult I have tried to be one to kids who otherwise didn’t have one.
I am very interested in my family history and can see, looking back, that there were good parental role models. On my father’s side it is necessary to go back a generation before his father to find one though. But they are there. So what went wrong? Well poverty was quite a strong feature, exacerbated by very large families, but another key feature is abuse of alcohol and also illness and early death of one or both of the parents. My father’s grandmother and grandfather (whom he never knew) died at the ages of 40 and 57 respectively. The family never spoke of them and I was surprised to find out recently that one of them was a high-profile person.
Good families can turn “bad” for a variety of reasons. Providing a permanent welfare option, and especially, allowing welfare income to be won by the fathering another child – and another – is a problem. I believe that most males have a natural drive, at least initially, to be the breadwinner for their families. When they can’t find a job or can’t keep one there is presently another option. They can make a baby and bring in more “bread” for their family. It is too easy to do that in this country. Big families, little money, too much time on their hands to get into trouble, alcohol, mental illness, etc. These are what causes families to break down from what I can tell by looking objectively at where I have come from. Others, of course, will have their own stories to tell. I like to hear from direct descendants of poverty and family breakdown because they know these problems in their earthly flesh and bones. They are not hopeless cases and should never be thought of as.
My children, and my nieces and nephews, don’t have these destructive features in their lives and they will almost certainly be alright because of it. So this “degraded” society stuff you spout is defeatist and self-serving and driven by a belief that people can only be saved by God and not by their own will. You are wrong or surely I would not be here writing this.
LikeLike
Gravedodger, you are the supreme apologist for exploitive practices and sheer greed 😉
You obviously didn’t see the 60 Minutes expose on ANZs forced sales of farms, the process was appalling and it was all about quick profits for the bank.
Your argument that corporates can’t pay living wages doesn’t stack up, it’s all about priorities. The real cost of labour should be factored in to a company’s budget. If a business can’t afford to employ someone on decent terms then they shouldn’t. I think you will find that the money is there, but if they don’t have to pay a living wage they won’t. You would have noted that when youth wages were introduced, Countdown immediately used them even though they were able to pay the higher wage before.
You know very little about the working conditions of many forestry workers, judged by your fudging. The level of injuries and deaths are not a necessary part of the industry and ‘just bad luck’. When working in those environments for long hours, minimum breaks, and often poor training, is bound lift the level of risk. Read the reports!
I find it incomprehensible that you genuinely believe that $15 an hour is an acceptable wage for any ‘experienced, skilled worker’, whether it is Auckland or Invercargill. This isn’t socialist ideology it is just plain fairness! If worker productivity increases then surely there should be some acknowledgement of that in remuneration, for some years now wages have fallen behind increases in productivity and it has just been pocketed by those at the top.
Working for Families isn’t just a socialist construct, if it was National would have wiped it immediately. It is a necessary top up so that families can just pay the bills and is a wage subsidy.
Even Matthew Hooton, a rightwing commentator, has expressed his discomfort of the high level of unnecessary corporate welfare that pours from this Government.
As for the GFC, Clinton’s repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was done with full Republican support and opened the doors to corrupt and greedy practices that led to the economic collapse. The greed from the financial institutions has still not been reined in, they were bailed out with trillions and still paid themselves bonuses. Do you believe that Clinton repealed the Act with the knowledge of the greed it restrained?
The ‘socialist’ plot stuff is nonsense, it is a beat up from some who don’t like their greedy practices constrained. We all know that this Government has its hands tied with the Auckland housing bubble, Government Ministers and their mate’s are reliant on capital gain for a good deal of their wealth and don’t want the tap turned off. You just need to read overseas advertising from New Zealand real estate companies (especially in China) to know the truth behind the industry, it’s the same set up as what led to the GFC, endless financial gain, money making money and unconstrained greed at the expense of ordinary New Zealanders who just want a home of their own (we are now down to less than 49% home ownership and dropping).
Read and weep!
http://www.propellorproperties.co.nz/real-estate-investing/
http://www.peninsulabay.co.nz/investing-in-nz.html
http://queenstown.nzsothebysrealty.com/queenstown-real-estate-company/overseas-investors.asp
LikeLike
Mr Kennedy, your increasingly shrill socialist rants are becoming tiresome and will change nothing, in spite of your tsunami of links.
Your total lack of commercial experience is “obvious” and swamped by ideological waffle.
Sometimes, however, your logic ventures into the weird.
If a business can’t afford to employ someone on decent terms then they shouldn’t.
The greens answer to unemployment perhaps?
LikeLike
DK’s cry of the deluded – “its just not fair”. Sounds like my children but with less understanding of how things work in the real world.
DK, if it was all about bankers greed, why are what caused the problem called Subprime Mortgages. The problem started with Jimmy Carter bringing in anti discrimination legislation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act and was added to by future Democratic presidents. The latest was when a lawyer by the name of Obama stopped George ‘W’ from bringing in legislation to put it right.
The fact you want to paint it as something else shows more about your ideology than your desire for the truth.
LikeLike
Ray, the ideological stuff is coming from you guys, as you just repeat the reassuring spin coming from the Government you support. There is a housing bubble expanding dangerously in Auckland and a good amount of nervousness is coming from the more responsible in the financial sector.
http://www.metromag.co.nz/city-life/property/auckland-house-price-insanity/
What you also don’t get is that low wages equals less discretionary spending, less money being spent in the domestic economy means less money for SMEs and a downward cycle of tightening belts and less money for wages. This is basic economics. The wealth of the country is being captured by a smaller percentage of New Zealanders (almost 50% of workers got no pay rise last year) there is a decreasing level of spending from most families. Wage increases have not been an inflationary factor for some time, while house and electricity prices have.
You must have noticed that the noticeable growth in the retail sector is in charity shops at one end and luxury goods at the other. Invercargill is situated in the region that produces more export in come then most (12% income from 3% of pop) and yet we are experiencing an increase in small business shop closures.
Our booming economy is a house of cards based on volatile commodity markets, the Christchurch rebuild and a property bubble. Dairy prices have dropped, tax revenue is lower than expected, more tightening of budgets (Southern DHB is laying off more staff) and yet the incomes of the top end continue to rise in leaps and bounds…
http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/rich-listers-crack-50-billion-first-time-6042739
The signs are all there for those willing to see.
LikeLike
Dave:
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/reserve-bank-gets-tough-auckland-housing-market-30-deposit-rule-investors-6312195
LikeLike
Invercargill is situated in the region that produces more export in come then most (12% income from 3% of pop) and yet we are experiencing an increase in small business shop closures.
I have noticed that. Maybe this has something to do with it:
“The bank’s director of institutional research, Gary Baker, said online purchases from offshore merchants were up 24% while domestic purchases were up 7%.”
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/233465/online-retail-sales-increase
Times change and business (as well as cities) have to keep up.
LikeLike
DK forever people have been warning of Aucklands so called property bubble.
Apparently there was one before the 87 crash. House prices on average lost 10% in that crash – and it was mainly the larger more expensive homes you rail against that lost their value. Following the GFC there was a dip in the Auckland market but it is back up above pre 2008 levels now.
You may call it a bubble, but where demand outstrips supply and supply is limited by councils artificial barriers there is no bubble. it is just a market doing what it does.
Yet again you are talking in headlines and slogans with no real understanding of what is happening in Auckland, as you would expect for a Green from Invercargill. Whilst a friend of mine recently sold her property as part of a matrimonial breakup for $4.5m, there are still plenty of properties available in Auckland for under $400,000. it is the more affluent and desirable areas that have significant value growth – as they always have. The average earner has never been able to afford to live in Remuera, Parnell or Herne Bay. And then again who would wan to live there when their work is not in the central city?
If you really cared about it you would be calling for changes in the RMA and council’s artificial limitations on building new homes. Instead you are using the so called bubble to flog your own ideological dead horses – more taxation and so called inequality.
BTW your Keynesian ‘basic economics’ is very suspect. Quite similar to your inability to do basic maths to understand commercial reality. If we paid people to dig holes and paid other people to fill those holes, would we be richer as a country?
LikeLike
Paranormal, I don’t get it. You guys complain of restrictive legislation that doesn’t trust businesses to get on with the job of making money and then blame those that loosened legislation for the GFC. Jimmy Carter and Clinton were both stupid to open the gates, I agree, but those poor wee bankers and financial whizz kids were not forced by their presidents to abandon all ethical constraints. Remember too that the financial advisors for successive US presidents were all deeply involved in the corrupt practices themselves.
The Economist (hardly socialist propaganda) supports my version of events: http://www.economist.com/news/schoolsbrief/21584534-effects-financial-crisis-are-still-being-felt-five-years-article
Here are direct quotes from the real estate page I linked to earlier that you must not have read:
“Real estate is a powerful way to build wealth because of leverage; your ability to multiply your return on investment using other people’s money (usually the banks).”
“You do not have to have residency to buy houses for sale in New Zealand”
“There is no capital gains tax on real estate in this country”
“Our government guarantees titles to real estate properties”
LikeLike
Tracey, You make some good points there are lots of factors that are affecting small businesses but it is interesting that lowered discretionary spending is rarely mentioned and it does have a substantial impact.
LikeLike
Dk – at least you admit you really don’t get it. Your jaundiced outlook only adds to you lack of commercial understanding.
It’s all about the liabilities taken on. Clinton and Carter didn’t open up new opportunities for banks, they forced banks to take on liabilities that were unsustainable. Hopefully you can get that. What happened next is the banking system did what it is designed to do and spread the risk effectively. Yes there are those that misrepresented the risk, but the underlying issue is the risk would not have been there if the banks hadn’t been forced to take on the liability.
I have invested in the property market in the past and also work with real estate businesses all over the country. To assist you have a listen to this: http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201753827/property-investors-warn-against-long-term-laws-for-short-term-housing-woes
So what that non residents can invest in the property market? You mustn’t be aware that Bob Jones has been teaching people about leverage in the property market since the 1970’s (Jones on Property was originally published in 1977). There is a tax on profits made buying and selling property. But all of that is irrelevant. For Auckland it is a supply issue. If it wasn’t a supply issue all of those points you raise are equally valid for Wellington, Taupo and Eketahuna but they are not experiencing a so called property bubble. There are still many areas where house prices are going backwards. Offshore investors are better investing in those other areas as there is a better return on the investment.
LikeLike
“Wage increases have not been an inflationary factor for some time, while house and electricity prices have.”
” Invercargill is situated in the region that produces more export in come then most (12% income from 3% of pop) and yet we are experiencing an increase in small business shop closures. ”
Some stats from QV
Invercargill house price April 2010 = $204,932
Invercargill house price April 2015 = $207,673
Annual increase less than 0.3% per annum.
Last 12 months – 0.6%
Some stats from Statistics NZ
Southland average regional weekly income 2010 = $687
Southland average regional weekly income 2014 = $780
Annual increase of 3.4% per annum in average weekly income.
Going by your so called “basic economics”, SMEs in Invercargill should be thriving Dave. You must be feeling good about that, and thankful to the National Government?
LikeLike
Dave, yes, but lowered discretionary spending should be right up your ally. Reduced discretionary spending on products and services that aren’t necessary translates directly to lower use of fossil fuel and other resources.
Just another example of where green ideals clash with social ones. It’s pretty hard to have it both ways I’m afraid.
LikeLike
Whoops – *alley*
LikeLike
“Annual increase of 3.4% per annum in average weekly income.”
Annual increase in power prices for Invergiggle (Contact Energy July quarter 2012-May 2015.) is 1.9% so not much in that either.
https://www.powerswitch.org.nz/powerswitch/price-trends/graphs
The point about online buying is a biggie IMO. In the last 8 months I’ve probably spent $3000 online on a hobby and Kindle books. I can buy a classy chef’s knife for $100-150 cheaper than locally (if available) and most important I can make my decision based on literally hundreds of reviews and comparisons on Amazon.
When I do this I’m buying in a global market with often no middleman at all.. I can deal sometimes direct with the factory in England, Canada, Japan or the US or whichever country has the best deal or exchange rate.. the price might be a quarter to 50% of what I pay in NZ and all it costs me is a wait of 10-25 days.
Its tough on local businesses but it also represents an opportunity for them to replicate what I’m doing and meet the market.. consequently I also deal with online local businesses who are selling the same product for near the same price delivered in two days and offering a range of other products and services.
I can see the same attitude coming from grocery shops now.. some offer specials better than the big chains, will offer to stock something I like and don’t hesitate to carry stuff for ladies out to their cars.. that sort of thing.
In a way its back to the future.. if you were into competitive show riding you went to Blackmores, got measured up and then your cap, jacket, jodhpurs and riding boots, bridles, martingales, saddles and whips came from the UK 3 months later. NZ was simply too small a market for even big stores to carry specialist items and thats still the case except for the internet and speed of delivery.
JC
LikeLike
Edit. The bit about riding gear was back in the 1950s.
LikeLike
My daughter is introducing me to overseas sites for clothes shopping – something I have done in that way before. We need to be asking the children “how do you want to shop?” and planning for that because they’ll be the customer making the decisions before we know it.
Online buying is another thing I thought greens would support. It cuts down on people hopping into cars and driving to the city centres to do their shopping. Now people can do all the shopping they want without even leaving their house. This must cut down on fossil fuels used for transport. Sure the product still has to be freighted. But it has to be freighted to retail shops anyway. So it may as well come to the door. This is much more efficient use of transport networks.
Of course in utopia we would have production of cotton, plastic, metal etc all done locally with the further manufacture into products local as well. But that is not realistic. That’s why we need cheap and efficient.
Dave may well come back with the idea of buses and trains to city centres. But for areas with inadequate public transport infrastructure the problem is funding the capital cost of upgrading. That money has to come from somewhere. It doesn’t just drop out of the sky. Borrowed money has to be repaid through growth of industry and population – the antithesis of what true greens believe in:
“…the real economic challenge has been not how to grow faster, but how to stop.” – Jeanette Fitzsimons.
http://www.news.aut.ac.nz/news/2013/august/economy-of-enough
LikeLike
have *not* done
LikeLike
“But that is not realistic. That’s why we need cheap and efficient.”
Tracey,
Do you think the Greens seek to redefine human nature or basic ecomomics? If so – what are the odds?
LikeLike
Yes, economics definitely. Human nature, not so sure. Probably the only way to achieve that in time to ‘save the planet’ from our wicked human ways would be genetic engineering and we know where they stand on that!
So their chances are about the same as Andrei’s odds for everyone finding God.
LikeLike
DaveK 9 15 all my witterings here reflect my personal beliefs therefore I remove myself from your Collective, ‘you guys’.
Much of the spin that comes from the government that is in my ever humble opinion often so very annoying, inaccurate and not worth repeating let alone shaping my thoughts but that said, the Key administration is far and away the best on offer.
For you to even suggest government spin has any influence on my thinking is frankly, insulting.
You however seem to me to be so slavish to GP policy I wonder if you ever question their daft ideas, I say daft based on the opinions of some of their so called allies. Hells bells their policy was too toxic for HC and co and then there is the doyen of NZ politics from St Marys Bay.
LikeLike
Redefining economics is already being tested as the minority gains another small foothold in controlling how the majority can or cannot invest, eg:
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/340505/dcc-quitting-its-fossil-fuel-shares
How long will it be before the minority tries to control how the majority can or cannot spend?
We should be more than a little wary. It explains why Dave here isn’t completely anti towards discretionary spending. Such spending will be just fine provided it’s on Green terms.
LikeLike
Just back from Wellington after attending my son’s graduation. Interesting responses. Despite me linking to well researched a well Metro article and The Economist to support some of my arguments you guys are still dismissing me as a Green Socialist with no understanding of economics. I my arguments are supported outside of my ‘Green’ sources, so I guess time will tell. Bill English refuses to collect data on overseas property investors who are clearly a considerable influence on Auckland prices, he estimates only 2% of buyers fit this category. I doubt this as even those in the industry think it is 5-10% in some markets and even at 2% a year, over 10 years it starts to mean a considerable amount of property is overseas owned and the untaxed capital gain is going overseas.
Yep Mr E, Invercargill does have cheaper housing costs but greater food and electricity costs than Auckland. Our median income is also slightly lower than the national one. We may have slightly more discretionary spending but the difference is likely to be minimal. We just got our first Decile 1 school after the census adjustment too. Our poorer are getting poorer.
Tracey, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the oil stuff, no matter how much I talk about a planned transition and not encouraging more exploration (we have enough known resources to tide us through),you insist on more encouragement and support a much slower transition.
I’m just about to attend the climate change consultation meeting in Invercargill in a couple of hours 😉
LikeLike
Dave,
“Yep Mr E, Invercargill does have cheaper housing costs but greater food and electricity costs than Auckland.”
Yep Dave, I didn’t say that, so I am not sure why you are agreeing with me. Must be that strong grasp of English you have. Yip – Nup.
“We may have slightly more discretionary spending”
Flip flip – one minute our shops are closing because of less discretionary spending – nek minute.
“Our poorer are getting poorer.” Said shortly after “We may have slightly more discretionary spending”. That must be a double backwards flip flop. Ever thought of trying out for the Olympics?
Yip nup, flip flop, nek minute, flip flop.
I score that a 7/10.
LikeLike
Not at all Mr E, the Salvation Army’s recent research shows the differences in regional economies. If we took one year as a baseline to assess the growth or otherwise of a given region and looked at different aspects of the local economy it may be quite revealing.
Invercargill has not seen a very even distribution of the wealth it has generated over the last five years. Our poorest have got poorer (a decile 1 school now) we have seen an increase in the luxury end of the local market (when you look at new and thriving shops and new car sales, etc) and a growth in charity shops at the other end. The median income of Invercargill is slightly less than the national median and this could be one of the contributing factors to closing shops. I agree with Tracey that it isn’t the only one but to argue that it isn’t a factor is nonsensical.
When I mentioned have ‘more discretionary spending’ I was referring to a comparison with other regions (we are definietly better off than Northland). I accept that it wasn’t clearly stated, but we were talking about the cost of living here compared to elsewhere.
LikeLike
Gravedodger, as you would have seen by my various links The Economist etc are hardly Green Party Policy, much that I present here are my own views or that of my many different sources. However no matter what i use it is still referred to as Green policy 😉
I also edit the Green Party magazine Te Awa where ordinary members, not always MPs are welcome to present ideas that are not necessarily policy, I haven’t seen National do something similar.
LikeLike
Sorry to be blunt Mr Kennedy but WTF has what The National Party got to do with me.
They inadvertently enrolled me as a member in 1972 when I attended a woolshed Meeting called by someone I respect, Derek Quigley when he was introducing a future PM in Jim ‘spud’ Bolger and invited me to hear him.
Admission was a dollar and The local branch treated it as a subscription and it took several efforts to dissuade them of that outcome.
Since then I am one of those who might work for a candidate and support policies of different parties but I am certainly not and never have been a member of any political party.
A simple apology will suffice as I have been forced to make this denial previously.
As to your denial, that so much of your comment here is GP policy and I base my opinion on the absolute trends of your positions, if that offends here is my apology for any offence but in no way do I resile from that view.
LikeLike
It is heartening, if rather unbelievable, Mr Kennedy, that you are proclaiming your distance from green party policy in your comments.
You may find it more difficult however to dissociate yourself from the global warming farce, a hoax you have managed to seamlessly work into this thread, (@12:07pm). Cults are much harder to leave behind.
LikeLike
“Our poorest have got poorer”
Invercargill Census comparisons.
Percentage of people earning between $1-$25,000 2006 = 51%
Percentage of people earning between $1-$25,000 2013 = 40%
If the ranges I have chosen reflect the ‘poor’ they are earning more. They are ‘richer’. Even if I chose a lower range ($1-20,000) the point is still relevant.
The statistics suggest you are wrong Dave. Your anecdotes fail to reflect census facts.
Tim Shadbolt is a legend when it comes to positive presentation of Invercargill. Are you his opposite?
LikeLike
“Invercargill has not seen a very even distribution of the wealth it has generated over the last five years. Our poorest have got poorer (a decile 1 school now)”
I had a look at the national changes in decile ratings..
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/63571991/Where-school-deciles-are-on-the-move
The graph shows that Invercargill has easily the most massive increase in higher decile schools and close to the lowest drop in decile, ie, by decile explanation at least Invers is one of the most equal societies in NZ and probably the OECD and is rolling in money.
JC
LikeLike
Mr E, we are talking about the purchasing power of invercargill people in supporting local retailers. The median income for the city is $27,400 and only 23% earn more than $50,000. $38 a week more for the median income since 2006 probably wouldn’t cover increases in electricity, food and rent over that time 😉
JC I think you will find that you are just seeing a redistribution in and out of different sectors. Invercargill has now got a decile 1 school for the first time (our poor have got poorer), a drop in the number of schools in the middle and an increase in the top. A normal distribution curve generally sees a few at the bottom, most in the middle and a smaller group at the top.
In Invercargill (out of 28 schools) we have 11 schools in the bottom three deciles, 9 in Deciles 4-7 (three are decile 4 and only one is Decile 7, and 8 in the top three deciles. I see losses of income in the bottom and the middle and growth at the top.
Ray, I am not proclaiming my distance from the party but my interest in speaking independently as an individual. If anything it is National that is run along cult lines, if any, with it’s Team Key campaign and the ability of Key to lead policy changes. Our policy is decided by the members and we have had people join us from other parties (including National) who enjoy being involved in good policy process. The support for Key is very cult like, and frightening, especially when I hear you guys regurgitating his mantras 😛
LikeLike
“A normal distribution curve generally sees a few at the bottom, most in the middle and a smaller group at the top.”
I think we all here know what a bell-curve looks like, Dave, but seriously, don’t you recall the long discussion we had on this topic awhile back?
I showed you that the Invercargill school students are distributed normally across the decile ratings. In fact there is a skewing towards the higher-middle deciles. See my graph (sorry about the lack of titles):
Y-axis is student numbers
X-axis is decile rating
n=30
You argue that the number of schools in each decile category should follow a normal distribution but this is nonsense because schools are not a natural population.
At the time I looked at the distribution of students across school in other NZ locations and indeed found skewing towards the lower deciles. Invercargill does not have much to worry about by comparison.
“In Invercargill (out of 28 schools) we have 11 schools in the bottom three deciles, 9 in Deciles 4-7 (three are decile 4 and only one is Decile 7, and 8 in the top three deciles. I see losses of income in the bottom and the middle and growth at the top.“
No Dave, you see what you want to see.
Sad but true.
LikeLike
n=30 *schools, representing 9818 students
Data source:
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/SchoolOperations/Resourcing/OperationalFunding/Deciles.aspx
LikeLike
Slight correction: 29 schools representing 9668 students.
Accidentally included one decile 1 school from outside the Invercargill area. So the 1 to 2 decile point should sit at 1032 on the graph.
LikeLike
The support for Key is very cult like, and frightening, especially when I hear you guys regurgitating his mantras
There are “certain substances” you should consider using less of then Mr Kennedy.
In spite of your pathetic use of a mixed metaphor, I can find no evidence of “mantras” (whatever they are), Key or otherwise, used in any reply from me or anyone else here.
The voices are all in your head, I suggest.
When called on your bullshit and faced with facts and genuine figures, as several commenters above have done re Invercargill, you do seem to thrash around a lot.
LikeLike
Dave,
From the Census 2013
Percent of people earning over $50K Invercargill = 24%
Percentage of people earing over $50K NZ = 27%
Infact the only real different is those earning over $100K. And that does not surprise me for a provincial town. Of course cities are going to have a higher proportion in the top bracket. That is just basic logic. Companies centralise head offices.
You seem to be making much ado about nothing. No surprises I guess, given the above criticisms of the Greens.
I have noticed you jump backward and forward from the ‘poor’ to the ‘median’ as your argument unravels.
It really seems pretty disloyal to your town, and quite frankly I doubt your Invercargill bashing will win you support amongst the town folk. I just don’t think people share your dim view. Just for a minute think about Tim Shadbolt and how he gets support. It aint from negativity.
Yip nup, flip flop, nek minute, flip flop, backward forward. A little dance, or perhaps diving off the high platform?
LikeLike
Sort of similar to Morris Dancing sans Hankies and little (cough) bells, eh
LikeLike
Really, when you are talking about hardship only about two big things matter.
The first is smoking.. if a solo mum on the DPB smokes then up to half her basic benefit can be lost to the habit and if its a low paid family with one in work and both smoke then up to a third of gross wages is lost to the habit. Thats at just a pack of 20 per day at $18/pack.
The second is solo parentage. Not being married and staying married accounts for over half the poverty in NZ.
And if as we’ve established by a lot of interagency research and surveys people live in a deprived area, have more than one beneficiary per household and the kids strike unsympathetic teachers then there no real way out of the poverty trap.
It doesn’t matter what you think about marriage or long term fidelity in a partnership.. if you don’t have it then there’s a better than 50% chance the kids will be in the poverty trap.
Start talking about fixing this before almost anything else.
JC
LikeLike
Tracey, we had that argument and your graph was distorted by the high schools rolls. Using only primary schools was a far better indicator because they only include pupils from within the city boundaries. Secondary schools include boarders (whose families have to afford the costs), bus loads from outside the boundary and overseas students. It is also young families that are the most financially challenged and the first years are so influential. Primary schools also better show the income distribution of the city as the pupils are more likely to live near the school.
Mr E, when Invercargill is one of the leading provinces economically one would expect some growth in incomes and a strong median income. All you have shown is that there has been some growth in income over the past 7 years, it would be pretty shocking if there were none at all. The value of $50K in 2006 is greater than in 2013 so an increase would have to occur to maintain the same spending power to cope with inflation.
What I keep referring to is the increase in inequality especially a growth in the level of poverty in the city (the new decile 1 school in a significant area), the increase at the upper end and a reduction of those in the middle. Remember the median income is $27,400 while the living wage would provide an income of around $37,000 (currently it is $40,000). I estimated that almost 3/4 of those in Invercargill do not earn a living wage.
Here is some interesting 2013 statistics on the levels of poverty across the country and you will see many areas where around 40% of incomes are only $15,000 or less. Not a lot of discretionary spending power to support our domestic economy.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-income/personal-income-area.aspx
Ray, you forget that I tend to support my arguments with facts more than most here, attack my sources rather than myself 😉
LikeLike
JC, you are making some huge generalisations about beneficiaries. I am sure you could find some that match your description but have a chat to some one from the Salvation Army, there are a large proportion of people in genuine need who deserve support and many families who are not beneficiaries but are still struggling. Blaming the poor and teachers for poverty is bizarre and when we have high levels of domestic violence you expectation that people stay in those relationships shows a disconnect from the realities of life for many.
LikeLike
It’s interesting that when presented with logic, facts & figures DK reverts to what he assumes is a higher authority. This time it was to an economist magazine article.
And yet again DK mustn’t have bothered reading the article before using it as proof of his ideological understanding of the GFC. But in the article itself it talks about the start of the crisis being the sub-prime mortgages that banks were required by law to provide those that couldn’t afford them. The article describes how the finance industry then transferred the risk.
As always with DK’s links it is time wasted following them.
LikeLike
“Secondary schools include boarders (whose families have to afford the costs), bus loads from outside the boundary…”
What does this say about where the higher incomes are? To the countryside is where people should be headed to escape poverty.
LikeLike
DK how is Invercargills median income skewed by the number of tertiary students living there?
LikeLike
Regarding international students – I’m not 100% sure but I don’t think they are included in these figures and their home addresses are not taken into account for decile calculation purposes.
“Primary schools also better show the income distribution of the city as the pupils are more likely to live near the school.”
I disagree. All this shows is that younger families have lower incomes due to taking time out of the workforce for child-raising. As children grow into their teenage years family priorities can become more income-focused again. That’s why you see higher incomes in families of secondary school aged children. They simply have more opportunity than during the early family years. Of course someone who believes that both society and the economy are broken can never be expected to acknowledge this.
Furthermore “…[i]t is not the general area around the school that is used to calculate the decile, but the specific meshblocks where students live.” So whether the homes are clustered around the school or more widely dispersed is completely irrelevant.
(Ref: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/SchoolOperations/Resourcing/OperationalFunding/Deciles/HowTheDecileIsCalculated.aspx)
Another pressure you omitted to mention, Dave, was the interest that schools have in lower decile ratings due to funding implications. Don’t you think that if there were major distortions leading to the artificial raising of a school’s decile rating the Principal of that school would be raising a din? You must be aware that they would.
School decile ratings, like any other measure of poverty/prosperity, are not perfect and shouldn’t be used to assess wealth disparities. Mostly they are useful for indicating gross areas of socioeconomic concern. In that regard I am sure that Invercargill falls well under the radar.
LikeLike
Dave
“…when we have high levels of domestic violence you (sic) expectation that people stay in those relationships shows a disconnect from the realities of life for many.”
That was not what JC said!
You cannot claim that someone is making “huge generalisations” and then in the next breath make a massive one yourself.
This doesn’t do wonders for your credibility.
LikeLike
Paranormal at 10:12am: Dave only recognises skewness if the direction is pleasing to his argument.
LikeLike
“JC, you are making some huge generalisations about beneficiaries.”
Well, someone is and it ain’t me.
Click to access 555108-cab-paper-six-monthly-report-mcop-april2013.pdf
Poverty is noway as bad as you think it is once proper analysis is done.
Smoking is what I say it is.. about 6% in the higher deciles smoke compared to well over 30% in the bottom deciles.. Lindsay Mitchell has the charts by decile.
Your median income is dodgy.. in the way you use it you get a median hourly rate of $13.70 per hour.. under the min wage. A better figure to use is the national median incomes from wages and salaries which is $863 pw or about $45,000 per year. You can adjust that down a bit for Invers if you like.
The median household income is $68,000 (2013) which you can google for the stats and the median house price for Invers is $186,000 per Interest Co or $194,000 per Real Estate Institute or about 40% of the nation median house price of $475,000.
You can get more info on numbers of beneficiaries per household here
Click to access 2014-benefit-system-performance-report.pdf
No amount of BS can hide the facts on median incomes, house prices, smoking, single parenthood and poverty or that median rents in Invers is $240pw against $360 nationally or that incomes have been rising faster than inflation and tax reductions have seriously improved net incomes.
Also, if you care to read that top link on the ministerial brief you’ll find why unemployment is generally low but under employment is relatively high.. its the Govt responding to serious research that shows getting people into jobs even on limited hours gives better outcomes away from poverty than foolish talk on living wages or dumb high youth rates that kill jobs.
JC
LikeLike
Dave,
There are endless stats to prove you are barking up the wrong tree.
Here some egs.
In 2006 Invercargill incomes $5K-$10K = 9%
In 2013 Invercargill incomes $5K-$10K = 5%
Incidentally NZ went from 8% -5% in this range. So Invercargill has made better progress in this range.
In 2006 Invercargill incomes $10K-$15K = 16%
In 2013 Invercargill incomes $10K-$15K = 10%
Incidentally NZ reduced by only 4% in this range. Invercargill has made better progress in this range than the rest of the country.
In 2006 Invercargill incomes $50K-$70K = 9%
In 2013 Invercargill incomes $50K-$70K = 13%
Incidentally NZ went from 10% -13% in this range. So Invercargill has caught up with that average, made better progress than the rest of the country.
Overall these stats show there has been a reduction in inequality. The best progress has been in the bottom end the poorest. Whilst progress has been made at the top end, it is not as apparent as the bottom end.Invercargill has made better progress in this bottom end relative to NZ.
Your argument looked weak from the beginning now it just looks silly.
LikeLike
Oh dear, Mr E, you are on a crusade. You still haven’t factored in the increase in living costs over the 7 years and disregarded the real crux of my argument that considering our region’s export wealth Invercargill has low median income. We jolly well should have done better than most other regions.
JC, Yep, many of those on low incomes smoke, there is no excuse for that other than addiction, ignorance and their family background. But I think you will find that the percentage is dropping with education and many have stopped since the price went up. I also think you will find there are disproportionate numbers smoking synthetic dope etc as well. Is this a cause of poverty, a reason for not providing support or just another symptom of poverty?
The median income from all sources is a better figure for assessing the general wealth of a community and its spending power. But you will have to accept that even when using the median income from wages and salaries at least a quarter will be earning half that and this would fit with the generally accepted figure of 25% of children living in relative poverty and 17% of children who don’t have their basic needs met.
JC keeping a lid on wages (almost 50% got no increase last year) only limits the amount of spending in the domestic economy and makes it harder of businesses, especially SMEs with higher overheads. Henry Ford’s philosophy of lifting wages as high as possible to ensure people could afford to but his cars mad sense.
Forcing people into part-time work has been problematic. I agree that it is good for people to be in work but the proliferation of casual and zero hour contracts has meant a very insecure working environment and the terrible dilemma of earning less when working then on a benefit. The value of benefits do not keep up with inflation like superannuation, so it is wages we need to increase to make work worthwhile.
LikeLike
“That was not what JC said!”
Good point, Tracey, I over reacted. I agree that we need to work on supporting stable marriages and long term relationships involving kids . A past acquaintance used to be a marriage guidance councillor and he told me money was one of the main reasons for relationships to deteriorate. While it isn’t obviously the only reason, financial security does help.
LikeLike
LikeLike
This may work better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq65rht0PiI
LikeLike
Dave, yes, money is a stressor if there isn’t enough of it – and this can lead to relationship breakdown. This factor was very prominent in my own upbringing.
But I would also add that capital is something that encourages couples to stay together. If you have some to lose or be divided, even a modest amount, then when all else seems hopeless this one motivator can keep the relationship going thereby giving the relationship time to heal and recover. Sometimes it doesn’t of course! There are times when people are better off not together. Although I didn’t think it at the time, I am glad my parents divorced. They needed to.
I cannot understand why some people go from relationship to relationship dividing their capital in two with each iteration. Are they just slow learners?
My parents both settled down for good next time around. Well done to them. A small capital sum was divided between the two of them when the house sold. One demolished it within twelve months (discretionary spending!) and the other invested theirs and built it up. Probably explains my political leanings to a fair degree. I will always err towards being conservative, particularly when money is involved, having learned early in life the good that capital can do.
So, while I can share your concerns about the extent and effects of poverty, I cannot agree with a philosophy of redistributing wealth by any means other than working for it. Wealth, even very modest wealth, has to be earned to be truly valued. Even then it is sometimes not; but the chances are a whole lot better.
I hope that sharing this information helps promote an understanding of both the similarities and difference in our stances.
LikeLike
“Henry Ford’s philosophy of lifting wages as high as possible to ensure people could afford to but his cars mad (sic) sense.”
Dave, you’re sounding very un-green again. Helping to populate the world with internal combustion engine motor vehicles was hardly a good thing – or was it?
Besides, low-wage industries, eg. supermarkets, fast-foods…their employees can already afford these products. No need to apply Ford’s philosophy there.
Of other low-wage employers, eg. rest-homes and some positions in schools and hospitals, we can, of course, ‘afford’ these services because of taxes paid by the earning members of society.
LikeLike
“I cannot agree with a philosophy of redistributing wealth by any means other than working for it.”
Tracey, you keep misrepresenting my argument. I believe that we need a safety net of welfare for those who need it but believe paid employment is important. What I am unhappy with is people who are intentionally not paid for what the work is worth and being forced into work that has no security. Increases in productivity has not been shared with most workers for some time the increases in worker incomes has fallen well below the productivity line.
I have heard the argument here that no one should have children unless they are financially secure and that immediately discounts more than have the population. The casual contracts and low wages many workers are paid are actually unethical.
“low-wage industries, eg. supermarkets, fast-foods…their employees can already afford these products. No need to apply Ford’s philosophy there.”
Speak with any budget advisor and the Salvation Army for the accuracy of your statement, Tracy.
LikeLike
““I cannot agree with a philosophy of redistributing wealth by any means other than working for it.”
Tracey, you keep misrepresenting my argument.”
That’s good to clear up, Dave, so you won’t be in favour of increasing tax rates as a means of redistributing wealth? Pleased to hear it.
Regarding supermarket and fast-food workers – you appear to be saying that they cannot afford to buy the products they are employed to prepare and sell. Maybe not everyone can afford the fillet steak and smoked salmon but that is life.
When I was growing up KFC was a treat. It was very expensive for our family so we didn’t have it very often. Maybe once a year if that often. Fast-food is now very much more accessible. I know some families who would be in the very lower income deciles and they have fast-food often – once a week or more frequently. To suggest that people who work at fast food restaurants can’t afford to eat there, if they want to, is nonsense!
Now, speaking of misrepresentations, Ford’s philosophy, you are saying, was “…lifting wages as high as possible to ensure people could afford to but his cars…”. Altruistic! Was it though?
“The reason for the pay rise was not as some of our contemporaries seem to think it was. It was nothing at all to do with creating a workforce that could afford to buy the products. It was to cut the turnover and training time of the labour force: for, yes, in certain circumstances, raising wages can reduce total labour costs.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/
Supermarkets and fast-food restaurants also have reasonably high staff turnover. They will have worked out the cost of that balanced against the cost of paying higher wages as retention bonuses. While the cost of turnover is lower, and the labour market continues to supply capable workers who are willing to work, businesses will continue to accept the turnover costs over the cost of paying more to retain people. If the balance changes, and turnover starts costing more than retention, then they will increase wages and/or other benefits.
What this clearly points to is that the best way to increase wages is uncertainty over the availability of labour resources either through scarcity or other influences. Ford paid his workers more to secure the workforce he needed. There is nothing startling about that philosophy.
Creating jobs and getting everyone who is capable and willing to work into a job is the best long-term way to increase wages.
You had better tell this to your Green mates in places like Dunedin where they are willing to thumb their noses at so-called unethical job opportunities.
LikeLike
“In short, what the living wage is really about is not living standards, or even economics, but morality. Its advocates are basically opposed to the idea that wages are a market price–determined by supply and demand, the same as the price of apples or coal. And it is for that reason, rather than the practical details, that the broader political movement of which the demand for a living wage is the leading edge is ultimately doomed to failure: For the amorality of the market economy is part of its essence, and cannot be legislated away.“
http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/LivingWage.html
That won’t stop you trying though will it Dave? Such a waste.
LikeLike
Tracey, this is the crux of the difference between us. You appear to consider workers a mere commodity, subject to market forces. Even the minimum wage under this theory is interfering with the true market process. If no New Zealanders are prepared to work for really low wages (especially if we had no minimum wage) than migrant workers would and that is fine under your philosophy. The job of any corporate is to make as much profit as possible and return a dividend to shareholders. If wages can be driven down substantially, then this is good business practice. It does mean that those working for those wages will struggle to survive and even pay rent. You will then get multiple families sharing one house and people living in garages, caravans and cars. It may cause large numbers of our children to be living in poverty and suffering from third world diseases. But that is just how the market operates and if those trying to survive on low wages don’t like it then they just need to up skill and get a better job.
Slave labour is fine under this philosophy because if you provided someone with accommodation and fed them then they would have the necessities of life to keep working and don’t need to be paid at all. I can imagine some struggling families would find this a better option than not knowing where the next meal was coming from and having enough to pay the rent. Imagine the profits a company could make 😉
I don’t like this philosophy about treating people like disposable commodities and having contracts where they have to be available for work but have no set hours or minimum pay. Workers fought hard for the 40 hour week, job security for their families’ sake and wages that are livable. There should be dignity in work, the value of their work should be recognised (as productivity increases so should wages) and if employers can’t afford to pay living wages then in is unethical in a developed country to employ people on less.
LikeLike
The US experience tells us all we need to know about minimum and living wages..
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417763/when-minimum-wage-hikes-hit-san-francisco-comic-book-store-ian-tuttle
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415569/minimum-wage-laws-ruinous-compassion-thomas-sowell
And here:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/labours-good-intentions-led-bad-youth-unemployment-ck-115419
Its simple.. if higher wages make businesses unviable they will close and add to unemployment and especially here where we prefer (politically) to use low cost labour rather than machines a higher cost of labour makes machines and robots more attractive than the likes of checkout chicks.
JC
LikeLike
JC, it all depends on who is telling the story. The US is also one of the most unequal countries in the world with real problems of poverty: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/16/pf/tent-city/
States that raised the minimum wage are amongst the most economically successful: http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/raising-minimum-wage-works-92198
Companies that pay well above the minimum wage are often very successful, many choose not to even though they could: http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/02/3p-weekend-10-companies-pay-living-wage/
LikeLike
Dave, your argument is pure Marxism, history has proved him wrong. Capitalism has raised living standards for all, it may falter now and then but always seems to reinvent itself and adapt. We know what happens when we abandon its principles, great wealth and power for the political elite – catastrophe for the rest of us, maximum inequality.
LikeLike
“Tracey, this is the crux of the difference between us. You appear to consider workers a mere commodity, subject to market forces.”
Caught out overreacting again, Dave at 4:54pm, and constructing exactly what you want to believe. Where have I ever indicated that this is my view?
That labour is subject to market forces is a bare fact. Presentation of which does not mean the presenter sees workers as a “mere commodity”. That is very far from my view but it is consistent with your labeling of me as a “supporter of exploitation”.
I urge you to reconsider the basis underlying your categorisation of people. Perhaps it is that you are one of the “…unrepentant socialists who believe that one can do away with market determination of incomes altogether.”
http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/LivingWage.html
The answer to that I would be very interested in reading.
LikeLike
If wages can be driven down substantially, then this is good business practice.
You really don’t have a clue do you, Mr Kennedy.
To call that comment stupid would do a disservice to every six-lettered adjective beginning with ‘s’.
Imbecilic, moronic, ignorant come easier to mind.
And to think you put yourself forward as a list candidate to represent others in our Parliament.
Were the greens going to make you workplace relations spokesman?
LikeLike
You’ve lost me, Ray, are you thinking that I was supporting this? This is what is occurring now, I don’t agree with it at all. Read my last links 😉
LikeLike
Tracey, name one market that is totally free and doesn’t have some regulations around human justice, the environment or managing fraudulent practice? The purity of the market is a whopping myth and to use it as an excuse to pay unlivable wages is disgraceful. There are regulations to limit the exploitation of our natural resources and workers should have greater protections against greed.
People predicted the end of the economy when slavery was challenged, we drew a line regarding child labour in the developed world, there are limitations on the hours truck drivers are allowed to work. You support a Government that removed regulations and union involvement in mine safety thinking that mining companies could be trusted to look after their workers and wouldn’t let profits interfere with safety. This is let the market operate freely and led to tragic consequences.
Your continued support of economic cultures that exploit workers is probably done in ignorance but the exploitation will continue as long as you support those instrumental in allowing it to thrive.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/9447037/Survey-uncovers-underpaid-dairy-workers
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/267612/home-care-workers-win-right-to-minimum-wage
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/259241/use-of-zero-hour-contracts-growing
As more and more stories are revealed about the exploitation of hundreds of thousands of New Zealand workers, the Government is being forced to reluctantly act. The Government knew what was happening (if it didn’t it was amazingly distanced from reality) and allowed it to continue for many years and even passed legislation to allow further exploitation.
LikeLike
In a thriving economy wages tend to rise because consumption, production and work are in demand. If demand falls so does employment ( and wages), it usually means new/better products are needed, or more efficient methods of production. Innovation, which can take time.
But if regulators try to legislate these issues away with wage minimums or import restrictions etc, it kills competitiveness and raises costs. Keynesians try to stimulate demand artificially with deficit spending, it seems to help in the short term but makes for head-aches further out. National reaching that point soon.
Yes, you can drive wages down but it usually indicates a struggling sector or a poor quality product (Warehouse/MacDonalds/) which creates opportunities elsewhere.
The self-organising nature of a capitalist economy has much in common with an eco-system; you Greens often rail against the imbalances man causes by meddling in it, so it surprises me that you are still so blind to the consequences of State interventions.
LikeLike
Dave, you continue to raise the Pike River mine deaths. I’ve said before that I had a cousin who died in the accident.
There is something of a parallel between Pike River and your earlier reference to Ford Motor Company and it is to do with incentives.
In the Ford case, the daily pay was almost doubled. This was done to try and curb the massive turnover of staff who did not like the working conditions. Why, you may ask, didn’t Ford just address the conditions that were causing workers to leave? The pay rate before the increase was already considered good so they weren’t leaving because of low pay.
Ford was unlikely to have woken one morning with an epiphany that he was exploiting his workers and needed to pay them double. It is equally unlikely that he was facilitating them to buy cars. He had a business problem (high staff costs through turnover)…and he had at least two ways in which to solve it. One way was to entice workers to stay…with money. Another way (presumably it was an option) would have been to address the working conditions; particularly the shifts which the workers didn’t like.
In the case of Pike River there was a similarly, if not more, extreme incentive system in place. The peer pressure on workers to meet monthly targets must have been enormous. They did complain about the working conditions but obviously not all of the important issues raised by them were addressed. I would ask the same question as above; why not?
A probable answer is that improving the working conditions to the extent required would have made the business nonviable. Here there is a place for monitoring and enforcement, most definitely. There has to be minimum standards for health, safety, and welfare. I’ve heard first-hand accounts of the working conditions in mines overseas and some of them are terrible.
You say that New Zealand mines couldn’t be trusted to regulate themselves but in fact the majority of them could, and will continue to, even with stronger regulations in place. No workplace can be monitored 24/7 and the Government’s resources will therefore go mainly towards those not doing what they should to protect workers. The good guys, as usual, will be left alone to get on with business as usual.
LikeLike
Ray, are you thinking that I was supporting this?
No, I am thinking somewhere in your 19th century Marxist mind, you actually Believethis. Why else would you say it?
I repeat..You just don’t have a clue.
You and Angry Andy Little should get together. you are both stuck in a similar time warp.
LikeLike
Willdwan, why have we allowed power companies to profit by charging far more than the cost of production and transmission. Our renewable and cheap power sources should give us a huge economic advantage but they are now used as a form of taxation as they pay increasing dividends to the Government.
The only company that truly benefits from cheap electricity is Rio Tinto and the majority of its profits go off shore. Fonterra uses coal as the main power source to dry milk, as electricity is too expensive.
If the areas where we could have a competitive advantage are expensive then keeping labour costs down becomes a more important factor.
“Yes, you can drive wages down but it usually indicates a struggling sector or a poor quality product (Warehouse/MacDonalds/) which creates opportunities elsewhere.”
The Warehouse actually pays relatively good wages compared to McDonalds (they pay permanent staff a living wage) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10882024
I think you will find that those corporates paying the lowest wages are doing just fine. Foodstuffs (owners of Pac n Save) made a profit after tax last year of $21,500,000 and this was up $6,0000 on the previous year. That $6 million alone could have given each of their 2,000 workers a $3,000 a year average pay increase. You can’t tell me that their margins are so tight that they can’t pay their employees more.
Click to access foodstuffs-south-island-2014-annual-report-summary.pdf
http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/more-protests-expected-over-starting-wage-5423649
LikeLike
Tracey, I actually support much of what you say. While Henry Ford was a little dishonest about the reasons for having higher pay it did actually result in raising workers spending power and helped lift the domestic economy.
You are right the good guys are not affected by health and safe regulations and minimum pay rates because they do it anyway. Minimum pay rates and employment law exists to curb and manage the not so good employers and to stop exploitation. By creating employment loop holes and turing a blind eye (or not having robust monitoring) allows exploitation to occur at the levels we are seeing now.
The trouble with Pike River was that Health and Safety systems had been dismantled to such an extent that even the worst work places had limited monitoring. The Government (including Labour) had allowed the mine inspectorate drop to two and excluded Union reps. How do we know who the bad guys are, wait for an accident?
LikeLike
Ray, it is certainly a sad world when anything related to treating workers fairly and addressing inequality must be communism. You have a very simplistic understanding of capitalist economics.
Some people, like yourself have never moved beyond Adam Smith’s simplistic view of capitalist economics. However in 230 years or so many economists have explored capitalist theory further and developed more enlightened views that don’t involve Marx’s theory of no private ownership and total state control (Marx never really explained in detail how his alternative economic system would actually work).
Over a hundred years ago Pareto looked at developing economic efficiency where a competing interests within an economy can be balanced in a fair way. He managed to better describe Adam Smith’s idea that free market competition and self interest can work for the common good (Smith never intended that a small group will exploit others to create extreme wealth at the expense of the majority).
More recently Alesina and Rodrik have explained how more equal societies have greater economic growth and just the other day Standard and Poor’s proclaimed that inequality was holding back growth in the US.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11313342
Your sweeping generalisations about my lack of understanding of economic theory just reveals your own ignorance if calling me a Marxist is the best argument you can come up with 😉
LikeLike
I’m inclined to agree with you about the electricity rip-off Dave, if that is what it is. Remember, with any capital intensive system you have to allow for replacement of aging equipment and development of new plants. I believe the Commerce Commission has a role in determining what is a fair rate. Problem is, the money is often diverted into other areas. We’ve had the same issue with Council rates and national road funding for years.
Perhaps you should reflect on what your carbon taxes would do to power prices.
LikeLike
“That $6 million alone could have given each of their 2,000 workers a $3,000 a year average pay increase. You can’t tell me that their margins are so tight that they can’t pay their employees more.”
Wow, you Mainlanders are really efficient. In the Nth Island Foodstuffs achieved a turnover of $5.4 billion using 22,000 employees whereas the St Island branch turned over $2 billion with just 2000 employees.
Except there’s this..
https://www.foodstuffs-si.co.nz/careers/introduction
Here FSSI say they employed 10,000 people, so if we paid them an extra $3000 each that would be $30 million and the company would have made a loss.
The fact is that FS Nth Island achieved about a 3% return on revenue received and FSSI a little over 1% and they would be out of business if they paid much over the minimum wage for a significant percentage of their people.
You do know that NZ has one of the highest minimum wages in the world? Depending on methodology used we are somewhere between 3rd and tenth highest.
JC
LikeLike
“That $6 million alone could have given each of their 2,000 workers a $3,000 a year average pay increase. You can’t tell me that their margins are so tight that they can’t pay their employees more.”
Dave, from the accounts you make claims about the 2014 year profits – however purchases, wages and expenses have gone up $138M. Do you know Dave, if Foodstuffs wages went up or not and by how much for the 2014 year? If you don’t know, I think you are making careless, callous claims.
Putting that aside, let us look at the business – and ask, is $21.5M profit outlandish?
The equity in the business is $315M. The profit is 6.8% return on equity. Around the current floating interest rate a bank would charge for a mortgage. So if you had a mortgage – and wanted to invest in Foodstuffs – you might think twice. In my view not an overly exciting investment opportunity.
Foodstuffs are not profiteering, they are achieving a reasonable return on equity, required when shareholders are involved. Business require profits Dave – otherwise shareholders pull out and you know what is next. Brokeville.
I’m surprised we are having yet another one of these conversations. I would have thought you would know better by now.
LikeLike
“How do we know who the bad guys are, wait for an accident?”
Why do “we” need to know who the bad guys are Dave? If by “we” you mean the public, they generally only become interested when it goes dramatically wrong. I don’t think earlier public awareness would really change outcomes very much at all.
There is an onus on workers not to turn a blind eye to unsafe working conditions or practices and I see no good reason why they couldn’t contact WorkSafe directly if there are serious concerns which are not being addressed by management. There is also nothing to stop an employee appointing a union representative as their employment advocate. They may even have grounds for a personal grievance if there has been unjustified disadvantage.
All the protections are there for people to use. I suspect you are just grumpy that unions are no longer handed a monopoly on workplaces and members under the law. I understand that but I don’t think we are headed back to those days anytime soon.
On employment law, I have been working with it for over 24 years and have never seen “creating employment loopholes” which you suggest is a deliberate intention. There are loopholes in any piece of legislation. There have always been loopholes in employment legislation because these are unavoidable. The clearer the rules are spelt out the more information is given to people within the inclination to get around them. Sometimes less is better, sometimes not. It is never easy to know exactly how people will respond to rules or the absence of them.
LikeLike
Willdwan, you forget that we already have hefty taxes on things like petrol and tobacco, many designed just to increase Government income. The idea of a carbon tax is to reflect the actual external costs that will have to be paid eventually anyway if we can’t lower our emissions. It also is a direct incentive (that can’t be avoided through market manipulation as in the ETS) that will shift us to a lower carbon economy. Also the the Green Party carbon tax doesn’t just go to the Government coffers but is paid back directly to people as a tax cut.
The real threats are all described in the Government document being circulated at the consultation meetings occurring around the country.
LikeLike
Like any business, Foodstuffs will face a tradeoff when deciding where to commit expenditure, exactly as in the Ford example Dave provided. There the trade off was; fix the working conditions vs offer more pay. Offer more pay was least costly so it won (presumably). This example is lauded by the living-wage advocates but as I have presented, it might not have been the BEST decision for the workers. Dave even agreed.
If Foodstuffs is forced to raise wage expenditure then there will sure as eggs be less expenditure on improving the working environment, perhaps not immediately, but at some point. Maybe the working environment is ideal already and doesn’t need money spent improving it. I doubt it though.
This is a problem for those who advocate for higher wages though. The better the work environment, the less employees feel aggrieved by it, and the less cause there is to demand compensation for awful conditions.
I was in a call centre last week for the first time in many years. The pay isn’t great. But it was a warm, calm, friendly environment. Staff seemed relaxed, had plenty of support floating around, ergonomic workstations, some flexibility of working hours, etc, etc. Just as higher pay can compensate for poor working conditions so too can great working conditions compensate for poorer pay. Pay rises might not be ripping ahead at the pace some would like but working conditions are generally steadily improving.
LikeLike
Tracey,
There is the other trade off too – business viability.
Dave has criticised Invercargill for having lower than average income despite the region being export strong.
But if you dig into it, our major goods exported are Aluminium, Dairy and Sheep.
Tiwai was considering closing and has been for sale for some time.
Dairy are facing another year of low payout, and there is no question, the average farmer will make a loss this year, and probably next year. Some will be forced to exit the industry.
Sheep numbers have been declining in the region for year.
The 2013 average farm salary was $49K and Tiwai are well known for their salary packages. Yet for some strange reason, Dave is moaning, wages need to go up. I think the trade off will be business viability. This is the main reason why I dislike the Green party. They don’t seem to understand the consequences of their ideals.
LikeLike
JC, Mr E, Tracey – This argument really comes down to what is a fair return to workers for their productivity. I believe that the living wage should be a bottom line in a developed country where there is ample wealth generated by the productivity and value created by the work of employees. Employers should only employ someone full time if they can afford to do so.
It then becomes an argument about how much of a company’s profits should be retained by shareholders and paid in salaries to management. At one time a CEO earned 8 to ten times the wage of an employee, now it is often over 20 times in New Zealand and hundreds of times in the US.
The undercover boss programme often revealed how there was often little difference in the capability of the boss and many of his/her workers and it was often luck or inheritance that allowed people to achieve management roles. Many of the workers provided excellent advice to their CEO on how they could improve the profitability of their company (some were put into management positions immediately after languishing in low paid jobs for years).
There is a good argument in supporting any rise in the pay of a CEO should also be tied to their employees because the proof of a good CEO is their ability to increase productivity and profits and to do that there is a symbiotic relationship where both are reliant on each other.
The other argument used here is one of the expectation that any company should be allowed a percentage of profit based on the equity of the company this can then be passed on as dividends to share holders and salary increases to managers. However equity can be an artificial construct as many companies inflate their capital value so that they can cream off more of the profit.
There was an excellent article in the North & South magazine that showed how the capital value of our electricity and transmission companies were inflated to justify higher charges and greater dividends based on the artificial assessment of equity. The reality of this was revealed by the share sales based on the company value, which turned out to be much lower than expected (it was nothing to do with the opposition from Labour and the Greens) and some shares were handed out without an upfront payment.
For some time increases in wages have fallen well behind increases in productivity as those at the top have been reluctant to share the wealth being created by all.
How moral is it for Pac n Save to immediately introduce youth rates and cut hours to experienced workers to lesson the labour bill and increase dividends for share holders. The productivity and value of the work of employees has been ignored when driving down wages.
New Zealand may indeed have a higher minimum wage than many in the OECD, but our median wage is also one of the lowest. The US has a much lower minimum wage but they are also one of the most unequal countries in the world and have growing tent cities etc. Hardly a model that we would want to follow.
We are actually a resource rich country with a relatively small population, we do have great wealth but it is increasingly being captured by few through corrupting the true intentions of a fair capitalist economy.
LikeLike
“JC, Mr E, Tracey – This argument really comes down to what is a fair return to workers for their productivity.”
Ah no it does not. If workers were to be paid on a return-on-investment basis then they’d have to accept nil return some years, or even a loss.
I’m surprised the union still has you with a view like that 🙂
LikeLike
“If workers were to be paid on a return-on-investment basis then they’d have to accept nil return some years, or even a loss.”
Either a business is a viable one and can afford to employ people or it can’t. A sustainable staffing level can generally be established and there may need to be a number of casual staff or short term contracts to manage fluctuations. Workers are just as tied to the success of any business as the employer, if the business isn’t profitable or fully productive, they don’t have a job.
You would have noticed that Foodstuffs is an established company with increasing profits year after year. There is some certainty in income and a level of staffing that can be sustainably supported. Foodstuffs, like the Warehouse could easily pay a living wage to permanent employees and higher wages to casual staff, they just don’t choose to.
A way around fluctuating profits is where a base wage is received that is guaranteed and annual or monthly bonuses based on either individual or general performance. Some jobs are like this already, shearers and fruit pickers are paid for their actual output and some jobs are collegial and the team could share increases in productivity.
What we are discussing Tracey are situations that are currently occurring where workers are not paid according to their levels of productivity or the real value of their work.
I often use rest homes as an example where the government has paid age care providers extra money for pay increases for the employees and then the company has spent it on buildings instead. As we know the real quality of a rest home is judged by the quality of staff and yet this is often ignored when extracting the highest possible dividends for share holders. Greed often supplants ethics and the true value of the workers.
LikeLike
Imagine Tracey
A dairy farm with a operating cost of over $8/kgMS, and a payout of $4.50 (a real example). Every hour the worker is paid results in a huge loss for the farmer. About $10K a week for that farmer.
On a fair return basis, staff would be paying the farmer to work. His/her share of $10K
LikeLike
“Either a business is a viable one and can afford to employ people or it can’t”
Wow – mind blowing stuff.
Dave, what a companies pay staff affects their competitiveness. On basis of everything else being equal, the company that pays the most for labour is the least profitable/ stable/ viable/ price competitive.
Here in Southland if the price of farm labour goes up 2 things can happen, sheep farmers stop employing and/or sheep farming becomes less viable. This is a factor in a greater number of conversions to dairy, which I know you love.
Are you sure you understand the consequences of your ideals?
LikeLike
Mr E, I would have thought a farm would plan around a cycle of income. If I remember rightly many sheep farmers I knew operated on a five year cycle where earnings that were down one year would be balanced by the following. This can be more easily done if a reasonable level of equity is established and can offset fluctuations. Obviously when projections don’t follow a predicted path it may mean a cut in staff and a review of the business plan.
I can’t believe the hypocrisy here where I have read comments where people have said that if a couple can’t afford to support a family that they shouldn’t have children and yet it is alright to employ people below a living wage to establish a business. It is just corporate welfare when Working for Families can subsidise wages to support a business that isn’t really viable.
Paying employees properly should be a bottom line that determines the viability of a business, if a business can’t be competitive while paying living wages then it may need to reassess its business plan.
I certainly do understand what i am saying and I am appalled that you support slave labour, as that is the ultimate realisation of your philosophy.
I also had a number of links that supported paying higher wages: Low employee turnover, retaining experienced staff, the goodwill generated from feeling valued all provide economic support for a living wage. The Warehouse obviously see the value of paying a living wage and when my daughter worked for them she would often go beyond her job description in providing extra value because she felt valued herself. Pac n Save is known as Pac n Slave for nothing it is just sad that so many people are competing for jobs in a low wage economy and so many operate in the same way.
LikeLike
“Either a business is a viable one and can afford to employ people or it can’t.”
It’s not that black and white, Dave.
“Workers are just as tied to the success of any business as the employer, if the business isn’t profitable or fully productive, they don’t have a job.”
Workers are far less tied as they can cut the bond anytime – often with as little as one weeks’ notice. Have you never heard the concept of rats leaving a sinking ship? Those who can, will.
It is not so easy to start another business. If you had done it on your own account then you would understand. And selling an oversupply of gooseberries to the supermarket doesn’t count!
“What we are discussing Tracey are situations that are currently occurring where workers are not paid according to their levels of productivity or the real value of their work.”
If they are paid according to productivity or value of work then they will reach a ceiling where no further pay rises are possible without some other form of justification. Further justification erodes the premise of paying for productivity.
I can’t believe that an ex-union guy is advocating for pay directly liked to productivity. Don’t you understand what happened at Pike River?
Imagine rest homes with productivity bonuses. I shudder!
LikeLike
Mr E says at 3:55pm. Nah, Dave says sack him. Rehire him when the going’s good.
LikeLike
“If I remember rightly many sheep farmers I knew operated on a five year cycle where earnings that were down one year would be balanced by the following.”
No one really knows what the next year will be like. Dealing with commodities and the weather is very uncertain. Should businesses which face high levels of uncertainty be prohibited from employing people?
“This can be more easily done if a reasonable level of equity is established and can offset fluctuations. “
Ah, you mean capital! How is capital made, Dave? Are you familiar with the concept of retained earnings? That’s how equity capital is built. Fat, Dave. Big fat profits reinvested for sustainability through lean times. Share all the profit with the workers, and the Government in tax, and they’ll spend it. You know, discretionary spending.
“Obviously when projections don’t follow a predicted path it may mean a cut in staff and a review of the business plan.”
Yep, Dave says sack ’em. Rehire them when the going’s good.
Dave supports high disposable income and highly disposable workforce.
LikeLike
“Dave supports high disposable income and highly disposable workforce”.
Mr E and Tracey, you are not attempting to engage with my arguments. Your argument is that employer should be able pay below a living wage if their business can’t afford to pay it. What I am claiming is that the threshold for the minimum amount that is set aside for staffing should be lifted and any increases in productivity of the longer term (12 months +?) should be recognised in employee remuneration.
Once the new minimum wage is established the workforce should be just as stable as it is now and in fact many businesses will benefit from an increase in disposable incomes.
You argue that employers just can’t pay good wages and business will just go broke and everyone will lose. I say that the majority of businesses that pay low wages only do so they are allowed to and can afford to pay more.
Employees need certainty of employment but I accept that short term contracts and some casual labour is necessary for flexibility and as a buffer when staffing levels cannot be maintained. However most businesses operate with a degree of economic certainty and the current level of casual contracts is too high.
“Should businesses which face high levels of uncertainty be prohibited from employing people?”
Not necessarily but they should be expected to pay a living wage and their employee contracts could reflect the uncertain nature of the business. Once the business stablises it can provide more certainty contracts can change. Supermarkets, rest homes and MacDonalds don’t fit that profile.
Are you saying I should be able to hire someone despite having no equity in my business, no business plan and no reasonable certainty of income? That is crazy stuff!
I know you think the workforce should be treated like a mere commodity, but I don’t hold that view. People need to be treated with dignity, the true value of their work recognised and worker exploitation should be abolished. You may support a return to slavery, I don’t.
LikeLike
“I certainly do understand what i am saying and I am appalled that you support slave labour, as that is the ultimate realisation of your philosophy.”
Thats called “Jumping the shark” the point where the argument is lost and something silly is substituted that further destroys credibility.
NZ has one of the highest minimum wages in the world and to equate that with slavery is dumb. To compound this by demanding a “living wage” which no ethical country is prepared to do is truly deranged stuff.
JC
LikeLike
“NZ has one of the highest minimum wages in the world and to equate that with slavery is dumb.”
JC, we also have one of the lowest median wages in the OECD and those countries, like the US, that have appalling low minimum wages have shocking inequality. I met a woman in San Francisco who looked after the showers at the international airport and the pay was so low she worked two full-time jobs to support her daughter through college. She slept in her car between jobs and worked 16 hours a day (from memory she earned $6 an hour).
New Zealand has one of the highest levels of under-employment in the OECD because many workers have no guaranteed income but have to be available for work at any time under casual contracts. You have to work 40 hours a week for the minimum wage to be vaguely worth while. We also have many home care workers (as one example) who are not paid for driving between jobs, also have to absorb a good amount of their transport costs and because they are considered to be self-employed (although they can’t work for anyone else) they get no guaranteed income and no rights to sick leave and holidays etc. One I know of works full days (and much is involved in travelling) and her taxable income last year was $14,000. If $39,000 is around the living wage then it is virtually slavery.
We have a huge labour force that employers can turn on and off like a tap for no regard to financial security or proper fiscal recognition of their work. The old idea of recognising service is almost gone too. Someone can work 35-40 years with the same employer and under current employment arrangements (if they are considered conveniently, self-employed) if they stop work, that’s it…no recognition, no gold watch and perhaps (if their lucky) a card with a few signatures.
Your enthusiasm for this employment culture is not something I support. I support compassionate capitalism, not this cruel demeaning environment, no wonder we have the highest youth suicide rat in the OECD, what a depressing undervalued future many have.
LikeLike
Sorry lots of errors above, but you will get my drift.
LikeLike
“Are you saying I should be able to hire someone despite having no equity in my business, no business plan and no reasonable certainty of income?”
Dave, no one said that. But now that you have – yes, they should. How else do you think businesses get started from scratch? If things are explained to the prospective employee so that they fully understand the opportunity being offered, and they choose to accept it knowing all the risks, why not? That’s a matter between the two parties. If done in good faith then there is absolutely no issue at all.
A long time ago I took a job working for an employer who fitted this profile. For lifestyle reasons I left a very secure job with a large SOE to take up this position. In my new job the money wasn’t flash and sometimes my boss was a few days late paying me but I got to make a lot of good contacts and learned skills that served me extremely well later on. I only stayed for 12 months because a better opportunity presented itself, but for the time I was there, it was fine. She only lasted a couple more years in business after that and then gave up. Such are the perils of starting a brand new business! I admired her. She gave it a go. Most people do not. To suggest that she (or anyone fitting that profile) shouldn’t be able to employ is incredibly patronising and an insult. What do you propose to do if (God forbid) you ever made it to power? Issue licenses to employ? Prosecute ‘potentially unsuitable’ employers for having the gall? Kick start ups in the nuts even before they get off their knees?
You show an absolute dearth of entrepreneurial spirit, Dave. It is hard enough to get a business started in places like Dunedin or Invercargill without having a grieving wet blanket like you lying around.
“I know you think the workforce should be treated like a mere commodity…”
You are wrong. I have tried to explain why but you choose not to get it. That there is a labour market is a fact. Just like there are other markets. Not all markets are commodity markets. Some labour markets probably are but many are not; or at least not wholly. We shouldn’t be worried that labour is a commodity in certain markets because, frequently, this matches with workers’ needs at the time. What is a more important measure is the movement of people through and beyond these to better job markets.
LikeLike
Petrol taxes are supposed to be spent on roads surely, that was my point. Tobacco carries a sin tax – a disincentive. I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Perhaps you worry that the poor don’t escape these taxes as they do so many others.
There is no ‘externality’ in carbon taxes if one’s competitors are not exposed to it as well. Can you not see that?
LikeLike
Tracey, your description of what businesses should be allowed to do is appallingly irresponsible. You are right I don’t get how businesses should have a right to employ people when they don’t have a business plan and most likely not even a proper budget. This is just irresponsible. Employees should have a duty to provide the work that they are contracted to do and the fact that you think employers shouldn’t have a responsibility to provide some security of employment is treating them like a disposable commodity.
Will, there is another argument about the value of carbon taxes in that they create an incentive to shift to a low carbon economy, which then has a competitive advantage through operating more sustainably. It also can create a point of difference that makes the products produced more attractive. Where carbon taxes have been implemented it has resulted in economic advantage: http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/b-c-s-carbon-tax-shift-works
LikeLike
Dave,
I find myself reading of your comments in this tread and shaking my head at many of them.
I have lost count of the number of claims that have made me frown. It is utterly disappointing to me to see a wannabe politician portraying what I consider contempt for so many basic fundamentals of society.
From my read of your comments the greatest contempt you seem to have is for employers, particularly larger organisations, ones you think are successful and it seems the word multinational is a dirty word to you. There even appears to be some contempt held for the export sector where you have linked lower than average Invercargill salary.
I think your behaviours are bullying and I will tell you why.
You have singled out Foodstuffs claiming growing profits and low pay. But you have no facts about what rates staff are paid or what pay changes would be. You seem to be almost blindly picking, bullying.
You have singled our Tiwai, claiming that they are exporting profits overseas, when a summary of recent years shows a huge loss made by the company.
Alcanz – (Rios 79% share of Tiwai)
2014 – $79M Profit
2013 -$67M Profit ($18M underlying loss due to asset write downs)
2012 – $548M Loss
Again I think you are picking unfairly, bullying.
Of similar disappointment is your apparent inability to understand the consequences of pay hikes. You and your party are lobbying for support of increase costs for businesses. Things like carbon taxes, start up equity and living wages are challenges to the very fabric of enterprise. When we add these pressures to our export sector and they don’t exist overseas, we reduce our competitive edge and our consequential productivity. Many of our export products have a low carbon foot print relative to others, and reducing our competitiveness will increase the global carbon output. Things that are apparently against the Greens principles.
Tracey is following a comment you made, and I support her whole heartedly. Of course companies establish themselves with risk. Things like business plans, and equity are not determinants of business success. If they were, much of business and innovation in NZ would not exist. If you disagree – tell me this, what will the milk payout be for the next 5 years? You’ll not find one person that can say with absolute certainty.
And when it comes to certainty of income – where does that exist when it comes to innovation?
Comments like that simply remind me that you don’t own a business.
But what disappoints me the most is an apparent inability to recognise that business, organisations, corporates and even multinationals are actually run by people. People that care, not only for the viability of the company but also for the people within. Whilst all are not perfect, in my view most do their best. That is how I see human nature. I don’t share this dim view of humanity that you appear to.
There are times where it seems you are suggesting possible criminal activity on a wide scale. eg
“However equity can be an artificial construct as many companies inflate their capital value so that they can cream off more of the profit. ”
If you are sitting by watching criminal activity go on, and just moaning about it on a blog, I am very concerned. Not just about the potential for alleged crime to go by without consequence, but also for the reputation of the Green Party.
LikeLike
We have already talked about the BC carbon tax system. I just don’t think New Zealanders will accept paying farmers a huge subsidy AND exempting them from the energy taxes.
Although that may not be necessary. As you may be aware, our scientists have made a breakthrough with so-called ruminant emissions. We soon could reduce them by up to 90% which would put us far below the 1990 levels permitted by Kyoto, which means you lot will owe us a poultice of money. You must be fizzing with excitement at the prospect, I’m surprised you havn’t mentioned it.
Unless…it was never really about the climate after all.
LikeLike
Willdwan, nothing is black and white and my argument was that a carbon tax wouldn’t destroy our economy as you suggested and i had evidence to prove it.
It’s great that scientists have discovered a way of reducing methane emissions from animals, was that the breeding solution?
“Unless…it was never really about the climate after all”
Good grief!
LikeLike
No, it will involve introducing a ‘compound’ into the animal to reduce the biota that cause the methane. Probably a bolus of some sort. So don’t go pre-spending all that tax money all at once.
Out of curiosity I donned electronic waders and went splashing around the socialist mire to gauge the reaction to this astonishing news. Crickets chirping in the Frog bog but they were very surly about it down at the Stranded. Hence my skepticism.
LikeLike
“Breeding for reduced methane emission is progressing very well. We have shown that the trait is heritable and indications to date show no negative production impacts. The difference between high and low emitters currently is about six per cent.”
Willdwan this was what I had read that confused me but a 90% reduction trumps that. You realize, though, that it is a pasture based diet that allows the reduction to occur, which will mean a less intensive regime for many. However I agree it is ground breaking and should been celebrated more.
LikeLike
More evidence of low wages in our highest earning industry. These jobs mean giving up on a normal life for below the minimum wages. Even with free accommodation they are being paid well below the skills required and the responsibility involved. Imported labour is being used to fill many of the vacancies, and no wonder! http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/68509128/Stingy-farmers-named-and-shamed-on-social-media
LikeLike
As usual not all the facts are being presented there. But, sure, it’s not an easy life. I think part of the problem is that those hours and conditions are easier than what we older farmers have grown up with. I employed a worker last year for a season. I was astounded how much time off the outside world has – weekends, short weeks, holidays, etc. I try to get about seven days off each year, it’s difficult.
LikeLike
Dave, Mr E is right. Business plans, budgets, and starting equity are not the most important success factors. None of that is action. ‘All dressed up with nowhere to go’ is a saying which comes to mind.
With SMEs, the critical success factor is this; capturing a decent market. The best start-up capital is ability, not cash. Without ability the money will be wasted.
Mr E, Dave owns no business because he wants to keep his cash.
LikeLike
“We would like the [Immigration] Minister to say to Federated Farmers and farmer organisations we are freezing all migrant permits on dairy farms until you can show 95 per cent compliance.” – Helen Kelly (Dave’s link)
Of course she would like to punish all good dairy farmers for the wrongs of a few other totally independent businesses.
It makes sense to Kelly, no doubt, that farmer A can tell farmer X how to run his business. But she’s like Dave and has never run her own business either.
This request is the equivalent of asking the Minister to punish The Warehouse for the poor employment practices of a $2 Shop in another city. Be OK with that would you Dave?
LikeLike
Will, is it your own farm and do you get pleasure and a good income from your work?
In the days before the dairy boom my sheep farming friends often struggled but told me that they mainly stuck with farming because they loved the lifestyle and enjoyed the job. A farm worker working on someone else’s farm for 60-80 hours a week on $12 an hour may not share that view 😉
Tracey, I don’t think you have read my arguments and your view that an employer just needs some ability and doesn’t need a business plan or some base capital before employing someone is extraordinary and irresponsible!
I also find it extraordinary that you know anything about my financial investments to make such value judgements 😉
As for you objection about wanting improved employment conditions on dairy farms, this is an industry that has around 50% noncompliance. This is more than an odd farmer ignoring the rules this is an whole industry issue. Your example is not relevant at all. The forest industry would be a better comparison.
LikeLike
“…your view that an employer just needs some ability and doesn’t need a business plan or some base capital before employing someone is extraordinary and irresponsible!”
Oh please! Where have I said that? Do quote me directly rather than choosing to misrepresent what I have written.
What I have said is that ability is amore important factor in business success than these other things. I will stand by that no matter how many derogatory terms you fire in my direction.
I’ve also said that employers should not be stopped from employ staff just because they don’t meet your limited prerequisites.
I know business people who would not have had the basic reading and writing skills to write a business plan when the started out. This doesn’t mean that they had no vision and broad strategy in their head and heart – a far more important place to have it than on paper.
It’s embarrassing, I appreciate, for educators like you to admit that many who were failed by the school system, not having been equipped with even the most basic of skills, have gone on to achieve stellar success in business.
LikeLike
Dave thinks this sort of thing is extraordinary and I tend to agree:
“Peter Leitch left school at 15 with no qualifications and what would now be classified as dyslexia. More than half a century later his persona is one of the most recognisable in the country, he is renowned for his philanthrophy and home-spun philosophy
“People ask me if I had a vision when I got my first butcher’s shop. No, I didn’t have a vision. I could get up now and say I did — pretend I was Martin Luther King and say ‘I have a dream,’ but that’s bullshit.”
“I went into a butcher’s shop and all I wanted to do was pay the rent and survive. That was it, I didn’t set out to build a big brand, but that was what happened.”
“His philosophy always was — and always will be — huge turnover, low margins. He would spend almost all the profit from one week on advertising the next, without a worry. There was no science behind it, no complicated business theory, just a gut feeling. (emphasis mine)
http://www.magazinestoday.co.nz/Features/Interviews/Sir+Peter+Leitch.html
LikeLike
I’m not saying it’s right Dave. Just pointing out that there are different expectations. To give you an example, my eldest daughter is in her second year of full-time work in a government department. Currently overseas on leave. She already makes nearly what I do after thirty seven years farming, has heaps of time off, flexible conditions, etc. I’m proud of her and happy she is doing well of course but…it makes you wonder.
LikeLike
Willdwan, I had to take stock myself when I was a DP working around 70 hours a week and my wife could double that with half the hours. But the key reason I moved out of that level of responsibility was not about remuneration but the lack of recognition for the extent of the role. At that time my teaching component has the same as other teachers and all my management responsibilities were just added to my teaching load (which is around 50 hours a week on average).
While having a job and making a contribution is important if you have a passion for what you do it ceases to be work. Sadly for many people work is a necessity for survival, they don’t feel valued and they have limited choices. Most now will never afford a house will think twice about having children (the average age of first time parents is now in the 30s) and will never have a secure income.
Tracey I’m sure Peter Leitch treated his workers well, probably paid over the minimum wage and provided some job security.
LikeLike
“Tracey I’m sure Peter Leitch treated his workers well, probably paid over the minimum wage and provided some job security.”
How did he achieve that in the beginning? I’m betting it is more likely that Peter Leitch paid workers as little as they would accept initially, and that he was straight-up with them about the job opportunity and the job security (if any) he could provide.
The idea of owning his own shop was growing stronger with Peter all the time, and in 1967 came the breakthrough.”
“…he asked me if I would take it. I said “Mate, I’ve got no money…”
The new business brought some new headaches, and Peter’s lack of management experience made life difficult.
“I was actually never very good at costing, because I wasn’t very good at arithmetic. What people don’t really understand is that to this day I do not know all of my alphabet, or all of my times-tables…”
– from What a Ride, Mate (Peter Leitch with Phil Gifford, 2010)
Dave Kennedy says “…I don’t get how businesses should have a right to employ people when they don’t have a business plan and most likely not even a proper budget. This is just irresponsible.”
That sounds like the kind of thing a puzzled secondary school student might say to their teacher. Have you considered, Dave, that maybe you don’t “get it” because you lack suitable experience? Selling excess gooseberries at the local supermarket doesn’t count. You need to experience risk firsthand.
How much equity did Leitch have when he went into business and how do you think he would have responded if a part-time gooseberry grower from Invercargill tried dictating how much equity was acceptable to start a business? I can just imagine…!
LikeLike
Sorry, Tracey, you haven’t convinced me that people should set themselves up as employers with no sense of the responsibility that it actually involves. Vision and enthusiasm are great but are nothing without planning and a sense of responsibility. Dyslexic people make excellent employers because they often have great people skills and are also good at appointing people people to roles where they lack skills and working collaboratively.
LikeLike
You just have no idea do you Dave. You have such faith in planning. I’m afraid most of us just have a rough idea and kind of make it up as we go along. You really should have a go yourself, hell you might make a go of it. But I think you might learn something too.
LikeLike
Will, before we employed people for the organisations where I have an employer role we ensured that we had some certainty of income to be able to pay them (as in the terms of the agreement). We had a clear job description and a detailed agreement. ‘Making it up as we go along’ makes no sense to me 😛
LikeLike
“…you haven’t convinced me that people should set themselves up as employers with no sense of the responsibility that it actually involves.”
Would that be because I am not trying to convince you of that?
“Vision and enthusiasm are great but are nothing without planning and a sense of responsibility.”
I said that ability was the most important thing.
“Dyslexic people make excellent employers because they often have great people skills and are also good at appointing people people to roles where they lack skills and working collaboratively.”
That would have to be the generalisation of the year. What evidence can you show that dyslexic employers are better or more benevolent than others?
In my experience there are disproportionate concentrations of people within rural environments who could be defined as having dyslexia. This is because the work opportunities to be found in rural areas, particularly land-based roles, often depend on very good visual-spatial skills which can be a dyslexic strength. There are lots of great rural employers. Helen Kelly obviously doesn’t get this with her desire to punish all dairy farmers for the wrongs of a few.
LikeLike
It is widely known, Tracey, that dyslexic people aren’t stupid and they develop other capabilities to manage their limitations in reading and writing. This generally involves excellent recall and good people skills. You would be surprised to know how many of New Zealand’s entrepreneurs are dyslexic including Sir Peter Leitch 😉
http://www.dyslexiafoundation.org.nz/peter_leitch.html
http://positivelydyslexic.co.nz/what-is-dyslexia/famous-dyslexics/john-britten
http://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2015/jan/15/dyslexic-entrepreneurs-competitive-edge-business-leaders
LikeLike
“Helen Kelly obviously doesn’t get this with her desire to punish all dairy farmers for the wrongs of a few.”
Not true, Tracey, which is why Federated farmers are taking this seriously:
http://www.fedfarm.org.nz/publications/opinion-editorials/article.asp?id=2065#.VV0BdmSeDRY
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/rural/270163/farmers-breaching-employment-laws-targeted
A large percentage of farmers were noncompliant, 2/3 had poor records and therefore it was hard to tell if they were paying their workers fairly. What i find disconcerting is that the same farmers would have excellent records for the performance of individual cows and were accurately tracking and monitoring fertilizer application or irrigation but couldn’t track the hours worked by their employees. Why would that be?
LikeLike
“before we employed people for the organisations where I have an employer role we ensured that we had some certainty of income to be able to pay them (as in the terms of the agreement).”
A government contract?
LikeLike
“…before we employed people for the organisations where I have an employer role we ensured that we had some certainty of income to be able to pay them (as in the terms of the agreement). We had a clear job description and a detailed agreement. ‘Making it up as we go along’ makes no sense to me”
Will, this is what Dave says, but the Support Staff in Schools’ Collective Agreement (Effective 6 June 2014 to 5 December 2016) Clause 2.5: Variation of Hours Per Week and/or Weeks Per Year allows the employer to change an employee’s hours of work every year, with just one month’s notice, and no compensation.
This agreement is negotiated and agreed by Dave’s union.
Often support staff in schools are on fixed-term agreements which are rolled over year after year and in the private sector would be considered permanent employment by virtue of terms implied by longstanding custom and practice.
Having had the advantage of working in both the private and public sectors, I would say that by comparison, the public sector has a much higher certainty of income and should be in a better position to offer greater certainty to employees
Dave says that I support worker exploitation but he is incorrect. I wonder if he does…?
LikeLike
Dave at 9:56am, it is true:
“We would like the [Immigration] Minister to say to Federated Farmers and farmer organisations we are freezing all migrant permits on dairy farms until you can show 95 per cent compliance.” – Helen Kelly
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/68509128/Stingy-farmers-named-and-shamed-on-social-media
So she wants farmers who have excellent employment practices to be prevented from employing migrants until those farmers with poor practices tidy up their act. Why? It makes no sense at all to punish the good employers.
It doesn’t matter how numerous the farmers with poor employment practices may be. As a principle it is both unfair and unwise to punish those who are doing the right thing.
LikeLike
“It is widely known, Tracey, that dyslexic people aren’t stupid and they develop other capabilities to manage their limitations in reading and writing. This generally involves excellent recall and good people skills. You would be surprised to know how many of New Zealand’s entrepreneurs are dyslexic including Sir Peter Leitch.”
I am sorry, Dave, that is not what I asked you for and, no, I would not be surprised at all.
I know that dyslexics often have fine abilities, great people skills, and are frequently very creative and practical. You often ask for evidence to back up claims so I am taking your lead in asking you for evidence that they make better employers. Having great people skills doesn’t mean someone will always be a good employer.
Read Sir Peter Leitch’s book. He panicked and made staff redundant at a time when he had the equity to see things through.
No employer is perfect. We all make mistakes. Maybe not you, but I’m well into my third decade as an employer and I have made plenty.
LikeLike
“As a principle it is both unfair and unwise to punish those who are doing the right thing.”
Steffan Browning supported at call for the WHO to deploy homeopathy to control ebola. A judgement he later called unwise. A judgement I call stupid. Does that mean we should judge the Green Party as a bunch of politicians making stupid decisions?
Daves habit of blaming industries for a bad few, suggests so.
When Staffan made this stupid error, did people call for the rules to change for all Green Party members? No, the law or public opinion was relied on.
LikeLike
“A government contract?”
A legal requirement 😉
LikeLike
Mr E, please explain how farmers doing the right thing are being punished?
If two thirds of teachers had poor records and could not track the progress of the children in their classes I would say that it is a problem with the profession. If 2/3 of farmers are not compliant it becomes an issue for the industry.
I’ll ask again, if farmers can track and monitor the performance of every cow in a herd of 800, why can’t they track the hours a couple of their employees work? Most jobs pay by the actual hours worked, but some farmers say that this is too hard and just want a rough average over 2 weeks. Some say it is kindness to the worker and gives them consistent pay, but there is evidence that it is used to manipulate any overtime downwards. Most workers just get paid for their hours of work per week and sometimes it may fluctuate.
LikeLike
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/10586157/Wages-and-overtime-urged-for-farm-staff
LikeLike
“If two thirds of teachers had poor records and could not track the progress of the children in their classes I would say that it is a problem with the profession. If 2/3 of farmers are not compliant it becomes an issue for the industry.”
So all teachers should face potential disciplinary action?
This is the equivalent of what Helen Kelly is saying, that is, a stop put on good farmers employing immigrants until 95% of the industry is compliant.
I accept that there are two ways of reading what Kelly said.
“We would like the [Immigration] Minister to say..we are freezing all migrant permits on dairy farms until you can show 95 per cent compliance.”
That could mean:
1) No permits issued to employ immigrants on individual farms that are less than 95% compliant.
Or
2) No permits issued to employ immigrants on any dairy farms until 95% of the industry can be shown to comply.
Since her message was to industry bodies you would have to assume that she meant 2).
2) is unfair and unwise. 1) is sensible. Fortunately the Minister is also sensible!
Which are you Dave?
LikeLike
Tracey, what percentage of compliance would make a safe environment for you? When immigrants accept jobs they currently have a 66% chance of having a noncompliant employer, are you happy with those odds?
LikeLike
“Mr E, please explain how farmers doing the right thing are being punished”
Dave, when NZ is ranked highly for its minimum wage, increasing it to a living wage reduces our competitiveness on the global scale.
NZ dairy was once recognised for its low cost production. We still have low cost production but barely. Increasing wages could tip the diary industry into an uncompetitive place. That is not fair when we are already regarded highly for our minimum wage. It is possible your approach with throw out the baby with the bath water.
“If 2/3 of farmers” – Comments like this simply remind me that you have an extremely poor basis for criticism. That is why I think your are bullying.
“why can’t they track the hours a couple of their employees work?” I am sure they do. The Labour department did a blitz on 41 farms and found 30 non compliant. Most of that issue is regarding record keeping. I am sure you will understand this is hardly an accurate survey of the industry. To bully an industry of thousands based on 30 farmers is not right.
Does it hint at issues – sure. But attacking industries based on only hints is bizarre.
It would be like me attacking the Green party because of Steffans stupidity. I don’t consider you all to be stupid.
LikeLike
Mr E, Steffan is a good example of what I am talking about, his actions reflected badly on the party as a whole and we took immediate action. He was stripped of his portfolio and there were other constraints placed on him.
Federated Farmers are taking the employment issue seriously as there is no good reason why so many should be so noncompliant in their records, especially regarding their employees. As you know with polls a small sample is used to determine what is happening in the wider group. I do believe that 2/3 is probably an exaggeration because they did say that they had targeted some with a prior reputation, so I think 50% may be closer the the actual mark.
50% non compliance doesn’t make it a safe industry for migrant workers to come too. Record keeping is actually crucial for establishing whether people are being paid correctly and could be covering something much worse.
LikeLike
“Tracey, what percentage of compliance would make a safe environment for you? When immigrants accept jobs they currently have a 66% chance of having a noncompliant employer, are you happy with those odds?
All employers should be compliant with the law, Dave. I am surprised that you need to ask.
If you pay attention to my message you will see that the thrust is about not punishing those who are doing the right thing.
LikeLike
“Mr E, Steffan is a good example of what I am talking about, his actions reflected badly on the party as a whole and we took immediate action. He was stripped of his portfolio and there were other constraints placed on him.”</em"
Dave, Mr E's point (and mine) is that you did not strip the whole party of their portfolios. By the sound of things you targeted the problem player..
LikeLike
Tracey,
“Mr E’s point (and mine) is that you did not strip the whole party of their portfolios”
Nailed it in one.
Other restrictions were not put on the party. Members have not been censored, or regulated as a result of Steffan.
With regards to Daves claim that 50% are noncompliant – that is what I call plucking figures from the air. Seemingly another example of holding the dairy industry in contempt – bullying.
LikeLike
The only so called punishment I can see is the potential to stop migrant workers coming in to work for farmers who are good employers. However if the industry as a whole has a 50-66% of non compliance then it is not a safe industry to come into and no responsible Government would expose people to an environment like that. The only way around it would be if each farmer wanting to employ a migrant worker has to prove they have a clean record in compliance and that would involve costly bureaucracy. Far cheaper to do random audits until compliance levels improve. Just like my example of teachers having a similar level of poor compliance, it is an industry issue.
“With regards to Daves claim that 50% are noncompliant – that is what I call plucking figures from the air.”
No, I was being kind because I thought the the 66% stated was probably above the reality. It was plucked out of the air but was much lower than has been suggested. And you claim that is bullying…good grief!
LikeLike
“The only way around it would be if each farmer wanting to employ a migrant worker has to prove they have a clean record in compliance…”
Ah, guilty until proven innocent I see. It is curious indeed that you only reject this on the basis of administrative difficulty, not on it being morally wrong. You do agree that it would be wrong for an employer to have to prove that they’re innocent of non-compliance before undertaking a critical business activity, don’t you?
The only employers who should suffer any consequences at all are those who are proved to be not complying with the law. It then wouldn’t be difficult to prevent them from employing migrant workers.
LikeLike
Mr E,
“Other restrictions were not put on the party. Members have not been censored, or regulated as a result of Steffan.”
The Green Party dignifies its MPs by treating them as individuals. Dave, Green Party representative, dignifies diary farmers by supporting they be treated as a herd.
LikeLike
Tracey….Good grief!
LikeLike