Written By: - Date published: 2:01 pm, April 1st, 2008 - 92 comments
Categories: national, workers' rights -
Tags: national, workers' rights
Now this is rich. National, the party that gave New Zealand its low wage economy, is running the line that the trans-Tasman wage gap is “Labour’s legacy”. You’d think such a shameless rewriting of history would be laughed off in a second, but it seems in the age of the memory hole even senior political journalists can be fooled.
So let’s get a few things straight. When National entered government in 1990 the wage gap was 18.9%. By the time they were kicked out in 1999, the wage gap had increased to 28.4% – a whopping 50% increase over nine years. Under Labour the wage gap has not moved, despite the minerals boom in Australia.
The reason for this is simple. National’s policy on wages was deliberately designed to remove minimum employment conditions, restrict the ability of workers to bargain for higher wages, let the minimum wage fall behind inflation and use high unemployment as a lever to put a lid on wage increases. The catchcry then, as now, was ‘flexibility’, a term that gave bosses the power to ‘reduce labour costs’ by cutting your pay and gave you the right to go to bed at night not knowing if you’d have a job in the morning.
As a result, most Kiwis’ average weekly earnings dropped or stagnated under National – by 1999 incomes had risen by just 0.3% after inflation. By comparison, eight years after Labour became government average weekly earnings have increased by 9.3% – more than thirty times National’s increase.
The real reason for the wage gap is clear – National’s attack on New Zealand wages.
So when National says Labour caused the wage gap, they’re lying. When they say it can be solved by tax cuts, they’re lying. And when they say they’ll close the wage gap if given a chance, just remember they’re hoping to do so with the very same policies that caused the wage gap to expand in the first place.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
The first post got stuck in moderation, I assume it is a language thing, so I have ****ed the ***king ***t out of this post to see if it makes it through.
We’ve had to tighten up the moderation on language after some quite offensive porn spam started showing up. It sucks, but I don’t want to have our site blocked by workplaces.
And ‘sod, tone it down eh? You’re getting out of line.
rishBill says: ‘Sod, behave yourself. You’ve been good lately but one more attack like this and you’re banned for a week.
This was what was written about Robinsod the other day underthe post ” scum” . We`ve had one more attack ( at least) from Robinsod You banned someone for calling someone else a wanker. Cant you guys at least stick to your word even if you are not consistant?
This guy is an utter disgrace. And you are condoning it by keeping him on to abuse people with purile comments.
Hey Irish – I might use stronger language but at least I make a point!
IrishBill says: ‘Sod I’ve just had a look at your previous efforts and you’ve been unnecessarily aggressive over the last few days, despite repeated warnings. Take a week to cool off.
… naughty little boy.
IrishBill says: Don’t think for a moment I banned ‘Sod at your request Tony and after that smug statement you’re on my watchlist. I’d expect a decent contribution from you now or you’ll be joining ‘Sod.
Good on you, IrishBill, for enforcing standards. I hope you continue to enforce those standards among commenters from both sides.
Truth hurts doesnt it, Robinsod?
I point out, based on the (still shady and suspect) evidence supplied on this site, that National started the rising median income trend, Labour inherited it as well as other nice economic trends, crowed about their economic management ever since, and all you have to counter it is vitriol and verbal gym-spastics.
IrishBill says: I wouldn’t be so smug if I were you Kimble. ‘Sod got banned for his style not the substance of his attacks and I happen to agree with him that you are trolling. “Gym-spastics” only confirms that point. You’re now on your last warning: stop trolling or face a week’s ban.
Truth hurts doesnt it, Robinsod?
Let’s not be kicking the man while he’s down eh.
Kimble, a few points as to why ‘sod might have got annoyed with your post – you’re not alright with “free passes” and then make such statements as “Labour have continued to reap the rewards of the tough decisions National had to make in their previous term in power.” and “How long does it take for a new government to affect the economy? Unemployment, wages, prices, interest rates, currency. How long does it take before the impact of the policies of the previous guys gets swamped by the impact of the new guys?
18 months? 3 years?
Perhaps we should base it on how long the new guys blame the old guys for everything bad.”
Both of these statements, the foundation upon which your whole diatribe rests, are utter rubbish and thoroughly contradictory.
Scenario one: your first statement is correct. Your second one is therefore a lie, otherwise Labour’s policies would have swamped those of National, there would be no ‘free ride’ on National’s policies.
Scenario two: your second statement is correct, there is a limited time before the new party’s economic policies take effect. Your first statement is therefore a lie, and the flourishing economy is due to Labour, and not National’s hard work.
Scenario three: both statements are bollocks. You can’t draw a line somewhere and say “this is where the influence stops”. Tell me where the influence of the First Labour Government, in setting up the Welfare State, stopped. Was it three years afterwards, in 1952?
The Standard have shown the wage gap opening under National, and detailed the policies that brought it about. That’s a whole lot more than your jumbled rhetoric has done.
Standard definition of trolling?
“Disagreeing with anything on The Standard.”
Seriously, where is the trolling? I am not talking OT, I am not simply gloat-posting (which is what a lot of The Standard regulars do/did at Kiwiblog, as in only post to say, “So what about Nationals secret funding?” etc), I am not inventing conspiracy theories.
What I DID do was respond to Robinsod in the way he deserves. Your banning shows that even you think he deserved it, and Robinsod is your #1 fan!
What I DID do was point out that based on the evidence provided, Labour inherited an increasing median wage. Look at the chart!
Nobody even bothers to point out that the National chart has the same demarcation, which is the simplest counter-argument. (But that is a weak argument because I haven’t refered to National’s chart at all, and quite frankly I dont care about it.)
This reminds me of the last time I was here. I simply asked people what Labour DID to cause some happy looking stat that was being crowed about other than being in power at the time. And all I got for what seemed like 100 posts was insults, equivocation, accusations of trolling, and the like.
Its the same here and now. Way to grow.
First of all, the free pass I was talking about was on the quality of the data Tane used.
National made some tough and unpopular decisions in the 1990′s, and no Labour supporter will ever admit that they were necessary, or could possibly have led to a better long term outcome. That is not a debate worth getting into. They will not change their minds. Ever.
The second statement was philosophical, and was meant to get you thinking (try it sometime) about whether the chart can really be split into a clearly marked blue and red sections.
Surely Labour did not influence the labour market the very instant they took power? They hadnt passed any laws. Even when they DID pass laws, the laws would have taken some time to come into effect. And then there is even more time after that before behaviours and expectations changed.
Obviously there is a big lag. So most of what occurs in the early part of Labours reign, is going to be attributable to the previous governments policies (as much as they can be attributed to anyones policies).
Tane is trying, on Labours behalf, to claim the entire increase in the real median wage from 1999 onwards, which is, quite frankly, either idiotic or disingenuous.
So if the first few years of the median wage increase is Nationals instead of Labours, then you can clearly see that trend in real median wage growth was established by National and was simply carried on by Labour.
At most, all Labour can claim is that they did not disrupt this trend, and may have helped accelerate it. (Though it may not appear so on a log scale.)
Wages STARTED increasing under National, and continued to increase during the first part of Labours reign with no credit to the Labour party. National set the trend, Labour was riding that trend. And the trend continues.
I just dont know how you guys can seriously argue that either, National got lucky and wages started to increase without any influence from them, and then Labour came in and caused them to continue to increase, or that Labour somehow managed to influence wage growth while in OPPOSITION!
PS. I just had a proper look at it and realised that the first chart isnt Nationals. It is supposed to show the wage gap opening up under National and staying flat under Labour!
But what else does it show? It shows the wage gap coming down in the first part of Labours reign! This is the part where National’s policies would still have had a significant impact.
What changed? Obviously nothing National did, they werent in power. This change in the trend is therefore attributable to Labour. So what did they do?
Tane also tries to say that the gap between Australia and New Zealand hasnt increased “despite the minerals boom”, but fails to acknowledge that NZ has had its own commodity boom.
Oh and lets all ignore inflation and what it does to restrain investment and increase uncertainty.
The second statement was philosophical, and was meant to get you thinking (try it sometime) This is why you get bad reactions from people. Being a wanker doesn’t really encourage people to respond to your comments (especially given their content or lack thereof, despit your high and mighty insistence that people MUST respond. Get off your high horse mate, you might realise that intelligent post get intelligent responses).
You’ve tried a lacklustre cover for both of your statements, but even so, I’ll give you a free pass and accept what you’ve said in pretending you can explain thm away, it’s not even worth debunking them. I’ll just point out that you said them both and if you can’t maintain a locigal flow throughout one comment you’ve no right to deride the reponses you get.
Quite frankly, your next effort is a whole lot of drivel as well. Can’t really be bothered with much of it as there’s a few vague insinuations, but it’s interesting you mention that Labour has merely carried on trends under National and so on, yet mention inflation, investment & uncertainty. So is it only Labour’s policies that operate in a vaccuum, or perhaps thy are affected by the same? Kinda makes it hard to ‘ride a trend’ in the real world.
I suggest you have a go at explaining how National’s policies could be so disasterous for wages and the wage gap at the time, yet set some platform for such great perforance – surely this will be pretty simple if the trends you elucidate are so clear?
Fuck off Matt, that was pathetic.
Look at the chart Tane provided. Tell me it doesnt support my story better than his. LOOK AT THE CHART. It is as plan as anything! The upward trend started with National!
You havent said a single thing to counter this. You demand that I explain why it is, when I dont have to, the data is what the data is.
I dont DEMAND that people respond, I just point out that they HAVENT.
Basically all you have done is misunderstand plain English then get prissy when your feelings were hurt. You never counter with anything worthwhile so just stop wasting my time with worthless semantic quibbles.
“I suggest you have a go at explaining how National’s policies could be so disasterous for wages and the wage gap at the time…”
I could point out that the period of low inflation allowed greater investor certainty leading to greater capital investment and increased worker productivity. Or that the ECA gave employers a sense of parity in the labour market. Or that National didn’t pass on to Labour a huge budget deficit and a country sliding headlong into bankruptcy. I could point out that the 2.5% decline in the median wage (yes only 2.5% decline) coincided with a reduction in the unemployment rate from almost 11% to 6%. Or that the removal of subsidies, tarrifs and quotas on import lead to a period of economic flux as inherently inefficient businesses closed, but after which resources could be better directed to more efficient and productive enterprise.
But why do I need to bother doing any of that?
I dont have to explain why the data is the way that it is. Tane has to support HIS assertion that Labour has done more to increase the median wage.
You guys are such suckers. All Tane has to do is put up a few pretty pictures, insinuate that National is evil and you lose any ability to think rationally.
The chart Tane is using SHOWS that the upward trend began with National. That is a FACT.
Look at his wage gap chart. LOOK AT IT. See how it is heading down at the end of Nationals reign? LOOK AT IT. See how it continues down over a period in which Labours policies couldnt possibly have had an impact?
Look at the median wage chart. LOOK AT IT! It starts going up in 1996, and continues to do so until the economic double whammy. LOOK AT IT.
You havent even looked at it have you? You are just going to go on about semantics again, arent you?
Tane only wanted to talk about the start of the period and the end of the period for each party. Which is dishonest, because he knows the story isnt that simple. But he knows his readers are.
They are reading from the same National Bad, Labour Good hymn sheet. National decimated wages. They attacked poor people. Their policies were mean. George Bush doesnt care about black people!
Really pathetic, even by these Standards.
I note Tane you never ever came to my blog to say anything about my little photoshopped effort. Say what you like but I’m not the one in denial about the fact Labour are toast after the election.
Robinsod…hello? Hello? All that anger and nothing to show for it.
I try not to visit your blog Clint.
LOOK AT THE CHART. It is as plan as anything! The upward trend started with National!
Calm down Kimble, you’ll do yourself an injury.
Yes, it’s true to say that the upward trend started under National. Also true to say that at they were just recovering from their earlier downward trend, and that at the end of their 9 years in government they left real average weekly earnings exactly where they found them (about $463).
Labour have continued the upward trend, improved on it, and after 9 years of their government have the wage substantially higher (about $519). Thanks Labour!
Ahh Kimble, Idiot/Savant has just gone in to this in more depth (as usual an excellent contribution):
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2008/04/its-about-distribution.html
As usual there is zero discussion on whether the previous distribution of economic gain was correct / equitable / sustainable.
The assumption continues to be that the way things were before 1991 was fair, and that just isn’t a given. There is ZERO consideration from the Left on whether it was redressing an imbalance. In fact, even posing the question is offensive to these non-thinkers.
“Yes, it’s true to say that the upward trend started under National.”
The first to acknowledge this obvious fact, but notice how you do it? The trend “started under National”, but somehow was not because of National. Whereas later you say that Labour has extended and improved the trend, and therefore can claim full credit.
Do you even notice that you are doing this? Do you think I am just being mean when I call you all unthinking National Bad, Labour Good drones?
Something good happens under Nationals reign, it is luck, happenstance. Something good happens under Labours reign, they are fully responsible for it.
This is even more stupid when you are trying to say it about a trend National started and Labour carried on.
“Also true to say that at they were just recovering from their earlier downward trend,”
So the policies they put in place, which started the enduring trend, are completely disregarded. And no consideration that perhaps the restructuring of the economy, of which the wage blip could just be a symptom, was necessary for the long-term success of the country.
“Labour have continued the upward trend,”
So at best Labour hasnt done anything to disrupt the trend. And because of this you swoon over them?
“improved on it”
Their marginal impact on the trend has actually been very small. Place a ruler on the screen and you will see that quite clearly.
“and after 9 years of their government have the wage substantially higher (about $519).”
I think I already covered this, but no one seems to want to acknowledge the logic. Labour may have been in power for 9-years, but the increase in the median wage is attributable to National’s policies and management for, at least, the start of that period.
It is a simple concept to grasp and I dont know why everyone here refuses to do so.
Labour rode the trend, didnt stuff up too badly, and had the good fortune to be in power for the 9-years, so uncritical thinkers like Tane and you credit them for the entire increase.
“Thanks Labour!”
But no thanks National for turning around a struggling economy, no thanks National for starting this trend, no thanks National for doing the hard yards.
National didnt “attack” wages, they didnt deliberately set out to make things worse for “the workers” just for the sake of it. But that is what Tane is saying, and that is what his followers are saying. And resorting to this sort of ridiculous argument just shows how bereft of ideas the Left is in NZ.
BTW the first part, before I quote rob, was in reference to the NRT post. Just in case that wasnt obvious.
The first to acknowledge this obvious fact, but notice how you do it? The trend “started under National’, but somehow was not because of National.
Actually Kimble, what I wrote was pretty simple, and you are projecting you r own interpretation into it.
Do you even notice that you are doing this? Do you think I am just being mean when I call you all unthinking National Bad, Labour Good drones?
Actually Kimble, it is you who are doing this, exactly as above.
We are all “guilty” of seeing the world according to our prejudices and expectations Kimble. It’s the way the brain works at a pretty basic level (not just politics). You are as guilty as anyone else. Sorry.
Just to illustrate how mediocre kimble’s rantings are, let’s look at the second graph. A rise at the end of National’s term, continuing for a couple of years, and then a dip in 2001.
An equally vaalid interpretation of the graph, therefore, based upon National’s history of having the wages drop under them (the start of the graph), is that this is National’s policies starting to take effect, and lower wages. Suddently, BAM! Labour’s policies halt the seemingly precipitous slide instigated by National, and from 2002 onwards they save the day, giving us the huge rise.
Your language betrays you, r0b.
“the upward trend started under National.” implies no causal relationship
“Labour have continued the upward trend, improved on it” states a direct causal relationship
Matthew, are you really trying to equate a single year event with a multi-year trend? What happened in 2000 and 2001? Anything? Idiot.
Did I try to say that the dip was the fault of Labour? No. I am not stupid.
You guys have nothing. You have been pwned so hard, just give up and stop embarassing yourselves.
Don’t play semantics with me Kimble, because you’re no Montague. If you want to split hairs on implied causality between:
“Yes, it’s true to say that the upward trend started under National. Also true to say that at they were just recovering” (fuller quote than yours please), and
“Labour have continued the upward trend, improved on it’
then once again, this tells us more about your prejudices than mine.