New Zealand -3.4 (-6.7%)
Australia -5.0 (-7.6%)
Euro Area -3.8 (-5.6%)
Ireland -10.7 (-16.7%)

The data doesn’t support this post’s thesis that right-wing economic policies reduced the labour share in NZ (or establish that a falling labour share is necessarily bad for workers, again, look at Ireland).

Roger nome – “I negated that when I pointed out that NZ is consistently amongst the lowest in every individual industry.”

You’d expect equalisation of returns on mobile capital between industries, so this is entirely consistent with my claim that industry composition is a crucial factor.

As to the fact that other countries generally have a higher level of labour share, I think people are getting the causation back to front here. Other countries’ workers aren’t richer because they’ve negotiated a higher share of output, they’re richer because they’re more productive – and being more productive, they earn a higher share of output for a given level of capital stock.

I’m not claiming that bargaining power isn’t ever a factor in deciding the labour share. But it is a not a major one for explaining cross-country average income differences, and the data presented so far does not support the claim that it has been significant in NZ’s recent history.

The latter is important because the loss of a large number of jobs in the 10%-20% above median wage bracket supresses the increase in median incomes in the region where those jobs were concentrated. If, at the same time, that region’s employment growth was concentrated in retailing, which had the smallest median income increase, then you would actually expect to see what actually happened to regional median incomes – Auckland’s median income falling from being 25% above the national average to only 10%.

By occupation the smallest increase in median incomes was 25% for managers and technicians, with factory and clerical increasing 33% and farming/forestry/fishing increasing 50%.

By industry the smallest increases are for manufacturing, construction and transport, second biggest are health and education, biggest of course being ag/fish/forest.

The 60-64 age group increased 150%, 55-59 increased 100%, over 65s (presumably working superannuitants) by 70%, most other age groups were up around 50% except 20-24 which only increased 25%.

Curiously the traditioanlly unionised industries have caught up with managers but it is the least traditionally unionised occupations that have made the biggest gains under Labour.

These stats only go back ten years so it would be going too far to state that this is definitely a case of an industry where supply and demand suppressed wages once SMPs were removed and rising global demand has simply reversed that trend.

If you can find this detailed data for Australia and NZ for the 4 decades shown in today’s graph and it proves my theory false I’ll be quite happy.

Can you provide us with a simple pie chart of the share of GDP for each type of income? The concept of wages as a share of GDP is not as simple as median incomes and wage gaps or taxes as benefits as a percent of GDP.

Razorlight: It is called the gerrymander. Because of the nature of FPP it was a hell of lot easier for the right to turf out the left in past elections. This is was despite how good or bad they were in office. In practice since the 1940′s, there has only been a single two term labour government under FPP, and that was because the Nats under Muldoon were so damn awful.

With MMP the ballgame is a bit different.

Before you say polls, I’d say that they are completely inaccurate for reasons I’ve expressed elsewhere. At this point they mainly pickup the talkback listeners. Most people haven’t really made up their mind yet.

This election is going to be close – within 5% for the two main parties from my feel. That means that the election is likely going to be decided on who can form a coalition. That is the main reason that the Nat’s have gone to “whatever she is having” as policy. They are looking to leave as much room as possible for coalitions towards the left – because there is going to be nothing on the right.

Problem is – can anyone trust them?

One certianty in Politics is you will make mistakes, the country will suffer and you get booted out. That is not unique to the right. The left make silly decisions that pisses off the electorate and they get booted. If some of Labour’s past performances were not appalling as you say, why have they been booted from office four times, soon to be five. Were they doing a good job? That is stretching credibility.

And as you are questioning my grip on history feel free to show me two governments from the past that have mirrored each other. I cant think of any.

In the absence of any policy to analyse, you have to run on a parties previous policies and performances. The Nat’s do have some pretty appalling performances to look back on.

Besides even the Nat’s should be reminded exactly how much the screw the country over when they get into power. They show a long-term trend of thinking short-term. Obviously don’t enjoy reading history..

I made the point yesterday and I will continue too as along as you keep making the argument that this National goverment will be the same as the Bolger/Shipley goverment.

There is no basis for this argument. Yes there are a few who will sit in both cabinets. But didn’t Goff and Clark sit next to Douglas and Prebble.

John Key had nothing at all to do with the National government of the 1990′s. He has clearly moved the party left. Yet for some reason you keep bleating on about how his government will mirror that of governments past.

So you can proudly spend your days and nights trawling through statistics from a decade ago, but what does it show.
Even if your stats are true, what do they show? Bolgers government was rubbish? So? How does that make Keys goverment rubbish?

The National Party, as has the Labour Party, evolved. For better or worst I know one thing for sure. The 5th National goverment will differ from the 4th. Just as the next Labour Government in 2017 will be alot differnt to Clark’s.

Is this another case of (as in NZ)a supposedly left wing government accepting neo-liberal economic BS because there is apparently no alternative (TINA) and merely softening the edges while peddling the same old same old?

FFS if you guys are serious about trying to resurrect ‘info left’ (ie a voice for labour) then you have to step out of and beyond the parliamentary labour party and offer a broader and more comprehensive left perspective. And that means – even for the liberal democrats- being engaged in constructive criticism of the (parliamentarian and beyond)left and generally accepting a pushing of the envelope.

Otherwise you are merely accepting parameters set by the right. Sorry guys, but as incisive as you might be on given issues, the scope is narrow and ultimately defeatist…you have right wing international financial institutions hemming in the possible manoeuvrabilities of social democratic governments….something the various labour parties of the Anglo-Saxon West have not only accepted but promoted in the face of supposed ‘end of history’ pragmatisism.

The voice of labour was never defined by parliamentary parties. That was and will only ever be a strand of the voice of labour. Give full voice to labour or change your definition of what ‘The Standard’ seeks to resurrect and perpetuate. Please.

Rant over.

(That’s what matters to me anyway.)

You forget about the state of the economy the National party inherited from the Labour party in the 90′s. The Fiscal Responsibility act, the bail out of the BNZ, stagnating growth, inflation outside desired ranges… Labour legacies… National’s problems.

So Quoth the Raven, which party is to blame for the economic troubles of the 90′s?

So National was thinking of the state of the economy in the nineties? How can you not see that this government has done better for the economy than the last national governemnt and it appears to be those same failed policies that you are lamenting the loss of, from your precious National party.

If that was me – actually, it doesnt make sense because the digger would be infinitely quicker and so the 15% made in shorter time, hence improved return. Easy decision.

But if the time was the same because there were many ditch diggers, um, I don’t know. I guess you would have to look at what other variables are floating around to help the decision fall one way or the other (like the ‘time’ thing).

If there are no other such variables and you were all living in the same community then I would help out my fellow citizens and employ them. Easy too.

Or maybe another variable would be that by using the digger instead of the people it frees up the people for other things. And this exact thing is how the agricultural revolution came about, and the industrial revoltion and the techno one and whatever the next one is going to be etc. That is a great discussion for another day.

Anita, see 9.17 post para 2.

Gotta go

(all just my own opinion of course, developed over many hours spent gazing vacantly into space)

The opening lines of another classic that somewhat pre-dates Pink Floyd.

Anita.

Exactly. While the return on capital in both cases is the same, and the same ditch gets dug…. but in the latter case the total wealth is much greater because the one person operating the digger is far more productive.

And in being more productive that one person on the digger has effectively freed up the labour of 99 other people to contribute to total GDP in many other ways.

While the percentage return on capital to the farmer may be the same, the proportion of the farm’s turnover returned to labour is different.