Comments on: Jam tomorrow

By: We can haz vision? at The Standard

We can haz vision? at The Standard — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 03:32:04 +0000

[...] I said two weeks ago when he indicated he would announce a plan to stop job losses (he still hasn’t, [...]

By: RedLogix

RedLogix — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:03:45 +0000

Of course the posted rate of unemployment figures (around 1000 per week new beneficiaries) hides the real rate which is about three times higher. Because of the miserably low figure of about $580 per week of partner earnings, and given that most households have two or more incomes, the majority of people leaving the workforce at the moment are not getting a benefit. In fact only about 32% do.

Interestingly the corresponding number in Australia is 99%. I guess that’s another aspirational comparison we won’t be hearing from Mr Key anytime soon either.

By: appleboy

appleboy — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:28:12 +0000

Another steamingly great national idea – pulling 50 million out of adult education – just the place where many people can further their skills in the event of being laid off…and hey then what? National give 35 million of that saving to…private schools, because those people who pay $10 grand a year in fees just can’t afford any more and are really feeling the pinch…I am amazed at how see through National are…same old tricks and same old drivers….nothing has changed despite the awful smile

By: Draco T Bastard

Draco T Bastard — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:52:43 +0000

Actually, it’s more because we sold the train set in the first place (as well as Telecom and others) and generally effed the economy with Rogernomics. Keynesian economics could have worked if they had been properly implemented (though Keynes was still wedded to the failed capitalist meme) and, when a faulty implementation failed we went to an even more unstable economic theory in neoclassicalism. On top of all that we’ve sold off all our actual wealth production to overseas owners so that they get to benefit and we don’t.

By: Clarke

Clarke — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:40:21 +0000

Yeah, cheap shot.

There’s been lots done about unemployment – why, only yesterday Paula Bennett oversaw the destruction of another 558 jobs at MSD! I think that qualifies as actual action.

Oh, wait, you meant action to decrease unemployment .. sorry, wrong government. Shop elsewhere.

By: So Bored

So Bored — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:04:56 +0000

Keys new ideas (oxymoronic dont you think)….an extended cycleway with a much heavier bridge loading so the trucking industry can use it…..specifically for the resupply of super sized burgers at th mackers on route. Howzat?????

By: toad

toad — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:55:05 +0000

Nick said: Toad, so you’d be for subsudising jobs in the Green New Deal but against subsidising jobs for any other initiative?

Nick, the Green New Deal jobs would not be subsidised jobs at all. They would be real jobs created, largely in housing construction and infrastructure development. The Government would have acquire assets through the creation of those jobs.

The Green New Deal is a long way from the Government throwing money at a multinational company with an appalling record in employment an environmental practices that engages in child-focused advertising and purveys food much of which is still questionalble nutritional standard.

That said, I am not opposed to targeted employment subsidies to encourage employers to take on “high risk” employees – that’s a far more effectiv and far more fair way of achieving that objective than the Government’s fire@will.bill.

By: Jasper

Jasper — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:48:38 +0000

So $60 million a year for the next decade?
Or $600 million one off purchase to keep in public ownership in perpetuity (that is, unless it’s stolen again)

I know which ROI I’d rather have.

By: jarbury

jarbury — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:48:02 +0000

The main issue with the whole McJobs situation is that I don’t get how it’s any different to how things could happen at the moment. Surely WINZ should have some sort of link with McDonalds – they’re a large employer who are actually expanding at the moment. It would be crazy if WINZ didn’t have a link and relationship with McDs and weren’t recommending people to them who are looking for a job.

So basically, I say “what’s new”?

By: Maynard J

Maynard J — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:44:26 +0000

Prove that there are positive externalities for any initiative, especially socio-environmental ones, and you will see my support.

By: Ianmac

Ianmac — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:43:13 +0000

“Outspoken Leader all Hat and No Cattle”.
Oops. I thought that this in the Herald today was about John Key. But I was wrong. It was Manuel Zelaya, Honduras.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:42:19 +0000

IB – I think English is a clown. That should set the record straight!

Captcha: Trains Lessening!!

By: jarbury

jarbury — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:41:56 +0000

Crikey Toad, they’re not up on the parliament website yet. You insider you.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:40:26 +0000

Toad, so you’d be for subsudising jobs in the Green New Deal but against subsidising jobs for any other initiative?

By: These are your grandfather’s McJobs « g.blog

These are your grandfather’s McJobs « g.blog — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:29:29 +0000

[...] are your grandfather’s McJobs Posted by Ari under Uncategorized Leave a Comment Irishbill at The Standard points out that our government’s wonderful new agreement with McDonalds is actually just a [...]