Written By: - Date published: 10:46 am, February 20th, 2008 - 96 comments
Categories: john key, national, tax, workers' rights -
Tags: john key, national, tax, workers' rights
“We would love to see wages drop”. You would think that given the simmering debate about our wage gap with Australia at the moment that would be the last thing you’d expect to hear from the leader of the National Party. Especially when he’d gone on record in the national media just a week ago claiming under pressure that his party “will raise wages“.
But that’s exactly what John Key told the Kerikeri District Business Association in late December last year.
“We would love to see wages drop”
Think about what that means for a second.
For most people their wage is the only income they have to pay their mortgages or rent, to feed and clothe themselves and their kids and to make sure they can have some kind of a decent life – all the things most Kiwis need and want.
And John wants them to have less.
We’ve talked about the wage issue time and time again on this blog and how the National Party has no answers on how to raise wages. They seem only to want to talk about tax cuts, and I guess this explains why.
That Key would say this to an audience of employers and within two months try to tell the New Zealand public the complete opposite is a disgraceful act of dishonesty, and it shows his real attitude to working New Zealanders.
Disdain.
I’m starting to understand how Key can claim his tax cuts wouldn’t be inflationary – his plan is to take them out of our wages.
UPDATE: Around the blogs Jordan Carter, No Right Turn, SproutBean and Kiwiblogblog have all weighed in. Scoop has press releases from Labour and the EPMU
UPDATE 2: The Council of Trade Unions has entered the fray, challenging Key to come clean on wages.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Rob I still think the leader of National wanting lower wages should stick out like a sore thumb no matter where you live. Maybe I’m too conscious of politics.
Bro – I’ve seen young journos completely miss the killer question and push the oddest things to the top in my time. And unfortunately it’s not only the noobs these days – a classic example of this was pointed out by Irish on this site a while ago in relation to the Shadbolt campaign. I was amazed that he got coverage for two weeks before anyone actually asked where the money for the campaign was coming from!
true, true. and then there’s the angle the editor has already decided to run
It was all so much better in our day….
hehe
Oh pay attention Rob. Wage increases simply to catch up to another economy are ultimately inflationary, and will do little to increase the standard of living in this country. Wage increases must go hand in hand with productivity to be sustanable. Productivity increaases when the tax burden is reduced for both employers and employees.
If we increase wages without productivity increases, the relative cost to employers of wages increases. employers myst then look to reduce costs, be it by delaying the purchase of additional infrastructure, raising prices, or outsourcing to a cheaper labour market. Using a softer approach, ensuring wage rises increase along with productivity, adjusting tax brackets, and allowing the worker to more fairly reap the rewrads of his or her labour is a sound policy, which all of you are missing because John Key used a phrase which I am sure he wishes he hadn’t. Now you are all over him because he spoke the truth, the literal economic truth.
meanwhile, Michael cullen taxes our economy in to oblivion and wastes years of global economic growth!
At least under John Keys stated policy goals, I have a chance of a reduced mortgage rate!
Bart. Will your reduced wage pay for your supposedly reduced mortgage?
insider:
Sounds right – pity the tories never follow that principle. Like these attacks on Mike Williams about a ‘donation’.
cap: then surpluses
Bart: Oh pay attention Rob.
Sure thing Bart. I read your post three times. I paid attention like anything. And yet I can’t see anything in your post which provides any other interpretation of Key’s statement: “We would love to see wages drop’.
You did mention “outsourcing to a cheaper labour market”. Is that what Key had in mind do you think?
Now you are all over him because he spoke the truth, the literal economic truth.
And The Standard is reporting his words on this literal economic truth. So, what exactly are you objecting to?
Ah, finally someone says it like it is.
Bart, I think the gist of what you’re saying is that all those people on an inflated wage (the minimum wage and lower income people with strong unions) are getting too much money.
This is inflationary, and causes trouble for those wealthy folks trying to pay off their mortgage on their third and fourth investment properties.
Cripple the unions, and bust the minimum wage, and National can reduce interest rates that will really benefit the wealthy.
At least you’re honest enough to take Key’s words for what they mean – that decent wages for the poor can (sometimes, under specific market conditions) be inflationary and this is an economic truth.
And how come none of you are reporting this statement from John Key.
“The way we want to see wages increase is because productivity is greater. So people can afford more. Not just for inflationary reasons, otherwise it’s a bit of a viscious circle as it comes back at you in higher interest rates.”
Now where is this statement to be found?
In the same bloody article you are quoting John Key from at the start of this thread.
I am not asking you to beleive, just to think!
Um, that’s in the linked PDF in this article. And he’s tried to use the productivity argument elsewhere. Guess what? He’s never explain anything of it. In fact I think the “we would love to see wages drop” argument is the most concrete thing I think I’ve ever heard him say.
OK Bart, I’m a bear of very little brain, and long words bother me. When Key says – “The way we want to see wages increase is because productivity is greater. So people can afford more.” – then I translate this as follows – “It will be just as good as a wage increase if workers make more stuff and there is more and cheaper stuff to buy”.
Sounds like nonsense to me. I’ll take a real wage increase please.
So what’s your interpretation of Key’s words? In nice simple language please explain the above statement from Key, and how it proves that Key doesn’t actually mean it when he says “We would love to see wages drop’.
Bart: Generally raising productivity in a firm is a mid to long term objective once the simple easy and cheap stuff has been done. In most cases that should have already been done. (And if it hasn’t then there are employers who should go to the wall).
The longer term productivity increases done by government funded infrastructure, or industry, take significant capital to get started.
In industry they have ROI’s EBDIC’s etc that usually take 5 years to reap returns. Thats why industry hasn’t done them previously, it has always been cheaper to hire people.
In government that take 10 years because most of the easier stuff has already been done. Planning permissions aren’t a significant problem. Planning, capital, workforce, and the technical problems usually are.
The last 8 years of Labour lead governments have been building the infrastructure. There has been more infrastructure built in the last 8 years, and more underway than there has been for 30 years.
Neither the Nats or Key have any track record in saying what they will do, and then doing it.
As an investor in NZ via my taxes, I’d want to know what their plans are. Simply taking a line of bullshit from a corporate pirate simply isn’t good enough. To date that is all that I’ve heard from that Nats or Key – bullshit and waffle.
“National wants to cut our pay” said S. Pierson.
That’s an outrageous lie and you know it.
Stop being economical with the truth and concentrate on the substance of this issue. Or is it your union background that prevents you from speaking the truth?
Stop being economical with the truth and concentrate on the substance of this issue
This from a troll like you Santi??? What a hoot – I don’t think I’ve ever seen you comment on the “substance” of anything.
You have to wonder why he bothers eh ‘sod?
Santi, if you want to focus on issues, there are other posts concerning the issue of tax cuts vs productivity. I believe The Standard has mentioned that the latter is more important.
The difference is Key saying he’d prefer that wages are reduced before this happens.
Is it your troll background that prevents you from saying anything intelligent? Oh…yes it is.
how did Hone Harawera describe Key?
a “smiling snake” i believe it was.
I have a solution to this selective propaganda debate from your guys.
Lets call a snap Election and let the people decide and see who believes who…
I love it when the rwnj call for a snap election
translates to :- I don’t think Key can hold out being economical with the truth for too much longer
Ha! I guess you must think that things for Labour can get better from here? The last week will be worth another 5-10pts away from Labour in the next poll. The longer she leaves it the better for us.
we’ll see Horis we’ll see
captcha = suddenly french
another false dawn eh ?
Horisthebear
You were correct…
How’s the Labour fundraising going at the walk for life cancer fundraiser …… really Labour tsk tsk what are you payong your PR advisors for ?
What about Helen Clark’s plan to cut our wages? The Free Trade Agreement with Communist China.
some need to read closer, Key is meaning (hopefully hasn’t already been mentioned) wages to drop under Labour to prove his point of wages adjusted to inflation instead of real growth. Also means he admits that there has been icrease in wages too otherwise he wouldn’t mention he would like them to drop.