Anonymous Dom editor has a cry

86 comments on “Anonymous Dom editor has a cry ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bored 1

   1 February 2010 at 1:15 pm

   We are talking jornos here, what do you expect? General knowledge, mathematical ability? All it proves to me is that editors sit on top of the pile by apeing their bosses views and being paid more than their underlings.
2. BLiP 2

   1 February 2010 at 1:31 pm

   How on Earth can someone spend so long in the newsroom and know how to gather facts to support a position . . . unless the Editorial is not actually written by a senior journalist anymore . . . I wonder if the Editorial is now for sale to the highest bidder . . .
3. John Dalley 3

   1 February 2010 at 2:14 pm

   Blip. That was the impression I’ve been starting to form with the Granny Heralds Editorial musings.
4. Olwyn 4

   1 February 2010 at 2:24 pm

   A graceful, alternative argument from Tapu Misa, drawing on Rawls:
   • Pascal's bookie 4.1

     1 February 2010 at 7:59 pm

     I know.

     Rawls.

     The smart one too, not the idiot son.

     In the newspaper.

     It wasn’t even an obituary, but an actual column talking about his basic ideas.

     Now that I’ve seen it, I expect I’ll die soon.
5. Tigger 5

   1 February 2010 at 2:30 pm

   Tax cuts. Promised by National when they knew they couldn’t deliver.
6. Danyl Mclauchlan 6

   1 February 2010 at 2:32 pm

   this anonymous whinger

   Well said! What kind of coward publishes their opinion and doesn’t have the guts to put their name to it?
   • IrishBill 6.1

     1 February 2010 at 2:38 pm

     I thought it would be a right-wing troll that took the bait on that one. I figure people know who I am quite well as I post as IrishBill consistently and have done since I started this blogging malarchy. Just as you have consistently posted under your handle.

     On the other hand I have no idea who this editorial writer is.
   • Bright Red 6.2

     1 February 2010 at 2:38 pm

     yeah, that’s the humour Danyl. It’s ironic. One could even call it satirical.
7. gerry 7

   1 February 2010 at 2:51 pm

   Editorials are not anonymous. They are generally written by the papers editor. They don’t put their name to it because they assume anyone with half a brain would know that.
   • IrishBill 7.1

     1 February 2010 at 2:56 pm

     It’s not just that you’re wrong that makes that funny but the fact you accuse others of being stupid.
   • Daveo 7.2

     1 February 2010 at 2:57 pm

     They are generally written by the papers editor.

     No they’re not. They’re frequently written by senior editorial staff. It’s also been heard of for a senior manager to step in from time to time. The editorial is the editorial view of the newspaper – that doesn’t mean it was necessarily written by the editor.
8. SPC 8

   1 February 2010 at 3:02 pm

   Two respinses immediately came to mind on reading it.

   Making an issue of the high salaries some receive (and which are public knowledge), is a shot across the bows of plans to focus tax cuts on the top income earners. Similarly, there are hundreds of thousands of people on less than $15 an hour. Every single one earns less than some top income earners will receive if tax cuts proposed by some are enacted. This speaks to the theme of the Labour leaders speech, the interests of the many, not the interests of the few. Phil Goff is boldly going where Labour leaders have always gone, to the people for a mandate to act in their best interests if the Tory PM will not.
9. Tigger 9

   1 February 2010 at 3:32 pm

   I see Finlayson isn’t anonymous in his Herald opinion piece today…
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10623365

   If papers here are going to run spin for the government can they at least stop referring to it as opinion?
   • BLiP 9.1

     1 February 2010 at 3:42 pm

     So the last 12 months have seen great momentum. I am very hopeful that 2010 is going to see a similar level of activity, especially in the Auckland region.

     That’ll be why National Ltdâ„¢ voted to ensure the voice of Maori was silenced in the lead up to and in the eventual privatisation of Auckland. Fuckers.
10. The Voice of Reason 10

    1 February 2010 at 3:43 pm

    Gerry is partially right that editorials are written by the editor. That holds true mostly on the provincial titles, where the editor has limited back up anyway. In larger titles, such as the Press, Granny H or the Dom, it’s likely to be the task of the deputy editor to oversee the editorial and it will be written by the deputy and a couple of other senior staff on a rota basis.

    The provincial editorials tend to be more pastoral and local in tone, attempting to connect with the community, rather than a sermon from the mount as seen in the Dom Post piece that Irish Bill has taken issue with.

    As APN and Fairfax remove all the senior roles from their editorial departments, we can be sure that the once clear division between the editorial and management functions will fade and the ability to write genuinely independant editorials will go as well.

    The good news is that losing all those sub editors last year has not affected the quality of headline writing in NZ, as this gem from Stuff illustrates:

    Charlize Theron splits up – report
11. JD 11

    1 February 2010 at 4:55 pm

    “I thought it would be a right-wing troll that took the bait on that one. I figure people know who I am quite well as I post as IrishBill consistently and have done since I started this blogging malarchy. Just as you have consistently posted under your handle.”

    So you’ve been a consistent anonymous whinger then?
    • IrishBill 11.1

      1 February 2010 at 5:00 pm

      Dick.
    • Armchair Critic 11.2

      1 February 2010 at 5:08 pm

      Why don’t you just tell us “It’s not what you say, it is who says it” that is important? RWNJ’s seem to have a thing for cronyism and nepotism and your comment makes you look like a RWNJ.
      In case you hadn’t noticed, your chosen tag does less to identify you than IB’s does. Hypocrite.
    • lprent 11.3

      1 February 2010 at 6:07 pm

      Just as an aside. Did you notice in our top 50 commenter’s last year, that only one person wasn’t writing under a pseudonym (Rex – who lives in aussie). The same would apply in every blog.

      Ok – so why are you writing comments under a pseudonym?
      • lukas 11.3.1

        1 February 2010 at 9:27 pm

        “Just as an aside. Did you notice in our top 50 commenter’s last year, that only one person wasn’t writing under a pseudonym (Rex who lives in aussie). The same would apply in every blog.”

        I find that rather interesting. I suspect that many people who comment under pseudonyms would not be as arrogant in person as they come across on blogs.
        • lprent 11.3.1.1

          1 February 2010 at 10:10 pm

          Exactly. They aren’t. But carry on the thought

          I find the insistence by some people about the evils of pseudonyms to be somewhat daft. It allows a much freer discussion, which just needs a bit of judiciously applied over-the-top moderation to keep from spiraling out of control.

          The forums that I’ve been involved in over the last 20-30 years that require real names are dead boring. They operate like a bloody committee and aren’t that useful for peering around ALL aspects of an issue.
12. TightyRighty 12

    1 February 2010 at 5:24 pm

    When you’re at high school/uni/trade apprentiship, upskilling and maybe working, or playing sport or whatever, but assuming you work, you accept that you earn a lower wage because:
    A) what you do isn’t worth more
    B) you’re not experienced enough to earn more
    and/or
    C) you know that you are getting the skills required to earn more in your chosen career by finishing school/uni/trade apprentiship with qualifications

    why then, if the next level to your career is available and you haven’t taken the steps to achieve that, should you just deserve to earn more?

    I watched the southpark “fishsticks” episode on the weekend again, and everytime they talk about the mental gymnastics cartman indulges in, i think of the writers and majority of commentators on this site. just because you believe the “experts” opinions that side with your own, doesn’t make you right, and it certainly doesn’t make your critics RWNJ’s, idiots, etc etc
    • BLiP 12.1

      1 February 2010 at 5:37 pm

      That you find cartoons so enlightening explains the kaleidoscope logic of your statement.
      • TightyRighty 12.1.1

        1 February 2010 at 5:56 pm

        that you close your mind to methods of communication adds to your general bleakness and ignorance. what a grey, stupid world you must live in.
        • BLiP 12.1.1.1

          1 February 2010 at 8:06 pm

          Your assertion that I have closed my mind to cartoons as a means of communication is verifiable false. Leaving that aside for the moment, what evidence do you have that the contributors to this blog have not also considered the opinion of “experts” which do not suit. Rather than having a wee blub, why not point to an “expert” you agree with which might reinforce the statements you make?

          And, no, sorry, Montgomery Burns doesn’t count.
          • TightyRighty 12.1.1.1.1

            1 February 2010 at 8:23 pm

            BLiP, how about answering my question first?

            “why then, if the next level to your career is available and you haven’t taken the steps to achieve that, should you just deserve to earn more?”

            I have no evidence, i understand that people agree with and support the reasoning of experts whose views and opinions align with their own. I do the same, rightly or wrongly. I do tend to put my own slant on whatever is being said, which means i read, comprehend and then argue without reference. what i am concerned about is the use of the terms idiots, RWNJ’s etc to label anyone who disagrees with the common consensus here.

            “Your assertion that I have closed my mind to cartoons as a means of communication is verifiable false.” thanks for talking like a bureaucrat, grey and bleak.
            • BLiP 12.1.1.1.1.1

              1 February 2010 at 8:37 pm

              “why then, if the next level to your career is available and you haven’t taken the steps to achieve that, should you just deserve to earn more?’

              If only it were as simple as that. Your grand, sweeping statement makes the assumption that everyone has equal access to taking “the steps” – it also has the implicit assumption that those who earn the least do so because it is their own fault. While I’m sure such a belief system makes it easier for you to step over beggars, it is a denial of reality.

              We are not talking about earning more, we’re talking about earning the same. Taking into account inflation, a person now earning a whole 25 cents per hour more, in fact, can purchase less this year than they did last year – people on the minimum wage have gone backwards.
              • TightyRighty …

                1 February 2010 at 8:46 pm

                hold on, everyone has a right to an education, and it is possible to get tertiary education with no cash outlay, just the ability to dedicate oneself to study for a few years. your answer is pathetic as it completely glosses over the fact that the steps are there to achieve a higher wage if one is ready to work towards it, and for it. you get a “did not achieve”
              • BLiP …

                1 February 2010 at 9:31 pm

                j u s t the ability to dedicate oneself to study for a few years

                Not everyone is like you. Some simply don’t have the ability, many don’t even have the inclination. Some prefer to work to live rather than live to work. There are also significant barriers to tertiary education in New Zealand, as pointed out by the OECD. Musicians and artists I know personally drift in and out of the work force because they are driven by their creativity, but now they have to spend more time working and less time being artists because the wages have gone backwards.

                But, seeing as how reality forms so little of your content, lets enter Wonderland and entertain the idea that you’re right. Yes, everyone in New Zealand just needs to pull up their socks and get a better job.

                Alright – what happens to the people following behind? Those who are entering the local work force for the first time – why should they earn less now than they could have just 12 months ago? I mean, Clueless said:

                National (Ltdâ„¢) will make tackling New Zealand’s growing underclass a policy priority this year and in government.

                “We are seeing a dangerous drift toward social and economic exclusion,” Mr Key warned in his State of the Nation address, ‘The Kiwi Way: A Fair Go For All’.”
                

                Geddit? The government says rah-rah-rah about making society more equal and that it is aware of the results of that inequity, yet sets about making things worse by ensuring the least well paid in New Zealand are even less well paid. Further, it backs up this heartless mendacity by repeating already disproved economic dribble that is being repeated in the media unquestioned. Your statements here duplicate that behaviour and add insult by insinuating blame.
              • TightyRighty …

                1 February 2010 at 9:40 pm

                I am not against the minimum wage, but the proposed $15 is to much to fast. it is possible for everyone to earn better than the minimum wage, as long as they are not of the mindset, “this is what i have got just accept it.” you hate the rich pricks for getting ahead, yet you think everybody should just hang out on the minimum wage, and pay rises are provided by the government. a little bit of drive and chutzpah will go miles in the business environment, if you aint got it, or won’t show it, then minimum wage is where you belong. Musicians? WTF? barriers to tertiary education? and your right, people may not be academically inclined. but i know a lot of tradies who earn more than most professional’s.
              • BLiP …

                1 February 2010 at 10:05 pm

                the proposed $15 is to much to fast

                Evidence?
              • TightyRighty …

                1 February 2010 at 10:08 pm

                how about showing me a single nation in the world that moved it’s minimum wage up 19% in one year, then i’ll listen to you. i tell you what i’ll even accept 15%.
              • BLiP …

                1 February 2010 at 11:04 pm

                Hehehe – shifting the goal posts. Must be a debate tactic you learned from Peter Griffin. And, what an aspirational, chock-a-block full of chutzpah response – the rest of the world didn’t, thus, New Zealand can’t either. I’m sure there’s a job for you in Treasury.

                I understand now you are expressing your opinion rather than comments based on any kind of evidence. That’s fine. But, if you don’t want to be called an idiot RWNJ could I suggest that you preface your baseless statements with:

                “I’m pulling this out of my arse but . . . “
            • TightyRighty 12.1.1.1.1.2

              1 February 2010 at 11:08 pm

              that is weak. so freakin weak. all you had to do was find one document supporting even a 15% rise in the minimum wage, i found something, though i doubt it’s relevance. i leave the ball in your court, where it will likely remain.
              • SPC …

                1 February 2010 at 11:16 pm

                Labour is only proposing a 20% increase over 2 years – that is less than the increase 2005-2006 which from 9 to $10 was over 10%. So the increase in amount already has a local precedent – and the $1 a year increase was higher off the lower $9 base than as an average for the 2009-2011 period going to $15.
              • BLiP …

                1 February 2010 at 11:19 pm

                Facts and figures don’t county with UpTightWhitey.
              • TightyRighty …

                1 February 2010 at 11:21 pm

                what is this 20% increase over two years, it’s been demanded immediately? i can handle 5-7%. any more i think is unjustified, as it’s more than a decent raise + inflation.
              • TightyRighty …

                1 February 2010 at 11:25 pm

                i didn’t think so, you can’t provide any BLiP.
              • BLiP …

                1 February 2010 at 11:50 pm

                Perhaps you missed my reference to a report on the OECD-identified barriers to education and the link to Clueless proving his hypocrisy. I didn’t make any other statements which can’t be backed up.

                I’m still waiting for your evidence as why $15 is “too much too soon” – yes, I fixed your typos – although I see you’ve backed off on it now saying you *think* its unjustified. You’re not quite there because actually you only “believe” its unjustified. If you were really to think, you would see its not. But, hey, you’ve made some progress. There’s a good lad – there’s hope for you yet. Just gotta work on that “blame” fetish of yours.
              • TightyRighty …

                1 February 2010 at 11:53 pm

                BLiP, where to start, i’m not backing off. you haven’t provided a shred of evidence yourself that a 19% raise can be justified. as i said, do it and i’ll listen. stop playing verbal games and provide.
              • BLiP …

                2 February 2010 at 12:08 am

                Okay – one more round – I believe it is justified because it makes up for the fact that the minimum wage was once 80% of the average wage but has, over the years, slipped down to less than 50%. This slippage has been a large part of the inequality that has developed between the rich and the poor and the creation of the underclass which impacts in both the health and justice areas. Also, an increase to $15 will act as a stimulus to the economy because people on such a low wage will spend most of it, plus the increase in GST will easily offset the increase in unemployment benefit. Then there’s the income gap between the unemployment benefit to consider which, might, act as an additional incentive for those who can work but don’t to reconsider – but that’s a whole other discussion. And, finally, perhaps most importantly, National Ltdâ„¢ owes it to its own voters to make good on its promises.

                There. Now your turn.

                What evidence do you have that $15 per hour is too much too soon?
              • TightyRighty …

                2 February 2010 at 9:01 am

                blah blah blah, listening trot out the same old tired shit blip. it’s fucking boring. because you have no evidence to prove that a 19% will not wreck the minimum wage workers employment options in this fragile economy, you’re persistent defense of it, in the face of the fact you can’t find one single example to support your viewpoint anywhere in the world, means you are an idiot. not a small one, but a large, bucolic, wrung out panties, idiot.

                19% in one year is “too” much “too” fast (happy grammar cock?) because of the following reasons

                1) this is a 19% increase in a variable cost for people who employ workers who perform jobs whose production value is on the margin of the minimum wage. when my the price of a variable good goes up in my business, we find a substitute or change our methods

                2) someone who only produces $12.75 worth of goods or services every hour, is right now, just leaglly employable. those same people, who won’t do any more if the wage goes up, will be legally unemployable at a minimum wage of $15

                3) labour is a good, therefore it has a price, with ANY supply and demand model in a market economy, when prices go up, demand falls. and in fact with labour, once price reaches a certain point, the supply of labour curve bends back towards the vertical axis.

                4) while you might think that legislating the shit out of things is the only way to progress as a society, there are other options which i have pointed out frequentyl, but being a idiot, you disount these because you obviously don’t approve of personal advancement. ignoring musicians, who if they were any good would earna decent wage, it is possible to get off the minimum wage in a variety of methods in this country. you do not have to earn the minimum. however should you choose to be lazy, in getting better qualifications and/or experience, or at your job, then the minimum wage is for you. it’s a starting point.

                5) the fact the minimum wage is a starting point brings me to this, if you put the minimum wage to $15 per hour, then all those on, below, or slightly above $15 per hour will justifiably want a pay rise. what, if like the $12.75 worker, their job isn’t worth more than $15 per hour? do they still deserve a pay rise? or are they destined to be stuck with all those people who got something for nothing?

                there you go, you bleak and ignorant idiot. i have given you my reasons, now once again, provide me with one example of where a minimum wage increase of 15% or more in one hit has been beneficial.
              • BLiP …

                2 February 2010 at 12:51 pm

                Well done, UpTightyWhitey!! Its unlikely we will ever agree but wonderful to see that after a little prodding and nudging along you are able to explain that your position, really, is just opinion in the absence of fact. That you “own” the opinion and event attempt some sort of rationale rather than stand on the side lines, hands on hips yelling at The Standard like some hectoring parent is especially impressive.

                I can understand you not wanting to defend National Ltdâ„¢ and having no references to your assertions, and I appreciate the insight into your psyche with the statement that human beings are nothing more than goods. I know your nappies are all wet and chaffing because there is no other country in the world were there has been a similar raise in the minimum wage in one year and you think that means you have some how pulled off a win. That’s a pretty hollow position and with bleak outlook. From my view point,

                There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why… I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

                R F Kennedy

                I’ll leave the final word and last slice of Nasty Pie to you.
13. JD 13

    1 February 2010 at 6:29 pm

    Harsh burn IB but still no denial.
    • lprent 13.1

      1 February 2010 at 6:35 pm

      Denial about what? That you aren’t a pitiful little whiner?

      Because you are.. Prove otherwise. Write something that has some substance rather than being a useless contributor to this sites comments

      I mean I’ve just looked at your last 20 comments and there is nothing of interest in any of them. Pretty tragic really. Stupid sniping with no humour or any points that anyone can even discuss. You look like a pathetic luser.
      • TightyRighty 13.1.1

        1 February 2010 at 7:34 pm

        is that with the “L” sign snapped to your forehead LP?
        • felix 13.1.1.1

          1 February 2010 at 7:45 pm

          Of course, it doesn’t count without the sign.
          • TightyRighty 13.1.1.1.1

            1 February 2010 at 7:53 pm

            are you sure felix? i thought the international rules of playground mockery meant you only had to say it “loo-oo-sah”? the “L” is for bonus points
            • felix 13.1.1.1.1.1

              1 February 2010 at 7:56 pm

              True, pronounciation is very important but I’ve always gone for the bonus points too.
              • TightyRighty …

                1 February 2010 at 8:07 pm

                pictures are worth a thousand words
        • lprent 13.1.1.2

          1 February 2010 at 8:06 pm

          It is from the BOFH – look it up.
          • TightyRighty 13.1.1.2.1

            1 February 2010 at 8:11 pm

            ah geekspeak. never again thanks
            • lprent 13.1.1.2.1.1

              1 February 2010 at 8:27 pm

              Be grateful. It helped create the medium you’re using
              • TightyRighty …

                1 February 2010 at 8:29 pm

                fair enough LP, some good lulz in that comment
14. kiwiteen123 14

    1 February 2010 at 7:42 pm

    I know as your official reviewer (:p) I should read this post but I can not get past what a pathetic and silly title this post has.
    • mickysavage 14.1

      1 February 2010 at 7:45 pm

      That is a very incisive and intelligent comment

      NOT
      • kiwiteen123 14.1.1

        1 February 2010 at 7:49 pm

        I’m sure if someone searched through the archive of The Standard and your blog they would find some stupid comments in amongst your sarcasm worthy of a 9 year old, but, hey, who is making personal attacks here?
        • mickysavage 14.1.1.1

          1 February 2010 at 7:57 pm

          Your original comment was silly. It did not address any issue or suggest why an adopted position was wrong. It was a waste of broadband.

          Are you 9 years old? Good on you for engaging in debate but raise arguments if you are going to do so.
          • kiwiteen123 14.1.1.1.1

            1 February 2010 at 8:03 pm

            My first comment at least addressed one part of the post (the title). Your first reply did not address the topic at all.
            Oh and why we are on ignorance 9 yo are not teenagers.
        • The Voice of Reason 14.1.1.2

          1 February 2010 at 8:13 pm

          ” … but, hey, who is making personal attacks here?”

          That would be you, pal. You’ve even got a website devoted to personal attacks on posters here. Wank much?
          • kiwiteen123 14.1.1.2.1

            1 February 2010 at 9:00 pm

            I do not make personal attacks on my site.
            Micky made the first personal attack.
            • mickysavage 14.1.1.2.1.1

              1 February 2010 at 9:34 pm

              No I didn’t you did
              • kiwiteen123 …

                1 February 2010 at 10:06 pm

                I’m not going to argue with you.
              • mickysavage …

                2 February 2010 at 9:27 am

                I was trying to highlight the childishness of your arguments
              • kiwiteen123 …

                2 February 2010 at 10:41 am

                I was trying to point out the childishness of your sarcasm.
15. Daveski 15

    1 February 2010 at 8:43 pm

    Kind of hard to argue against the fact that given the economic good times, Labour choose not to increase the minimum wage. For the same players to make political gain of national not doing after the worst recession in 70 years is the type of intellectually bankrupt lines normally ridiculed here.

    To compound it, Labour oversaw massive increases in CEO wages and now in opposition wants to cap them. Flip flop anyone?

    There’s plenty of targets in the Nats and some strengths on the left. This isn’t one of them so I can’t see the point in digging further.

    BTW is it me or are the attacks here deliberating ignoring the points raised and focussing on the diversionary issues eg anonymity?
    • felix 15.1

      1 February 2010 at 8:45 pm

      given the economic good times, Labour choose not to increase the minimum wage

      How much did they not raise it by? Anyone?
      • TightyRighty 15.1.1

        1 February 2010 at 9:00 pm

        70% in nine years. not 19% in one though, or did they?
        • felix 15.1.1.1

          1 February 2010 at 9:04 pm

          70%!

          Daveski you gots some splainin to do.
          • Lew 15.1.1.1.1

            1 February 2010 at 9:08 pm

            In the words of someone TR probably admires: it’s all just fuzzy math.

            L

            Captcha: “FAILURES”
            • TightyRighty 15.1.1.1.1.1

              1 February 2010 at 9:12 pm

              I will admit i admire GWB. i won’t explain why, no one will get it. but really quoting that, when he is up against Al Gore? who is fuzzier than last nights tennis balls after the fed ex was done with them?

              captcha: statements
              • Lew …

                1 February 2010 at 9:16 pm

                TR, it’s ok. Everyone has their shameful secrets.

                L
              • TightyRighty …

                1 February 2010 at 9:17 pm

                oh, I’m not ashamed
              • Lew …

                1 February 2010 at 9:19 pm

                And that’s something you ought to be ashamed about, too 😉

                L
      • Daveski 15.1.2

        1 February 2010 at 9:16 pm

        LOL … petard and hoist springs to mind. What I meant to say was Labour choose not to move to $15/hr (nothing stopping them according to your logic) but now same people demanding Nats do it when the economy been through a recession,

        Bugger that it didn’t come out that way tho!
        • felix 15.1.2.1

          1 February 2010 at 9:24 pm

          I don’t entirely disagree with you Daveski. I think Labour should’ve put the min wage up to $15 when they cut the company tax rate.

          And yeah it does seem a bit on the nose that they suddenly back the $15 figure as soon as they hit the opposition benches.
          • TightyRighty 15.1.2.1.1

            1 February 2010 at 9:28 pm

            really? felix? from you? you give a little you get a little i guess.
          • kiwiteen123 15.1.2.1.2

            1 February 2010 at 9:30 pm

            I love you felix!
16. SPC 16

    1 February 2010 at 9:38 pm

    Labour increased it from 7 to $9 over 6 years. While they did this unemployment continued to fall.

    In 2005 NZF and Greens campaigned on increasing the MW by a $1 a year till it was $12 in 2008 (despite these increases unemployment only turned back up with Bollards OCR recession). Labour could only form a coalition with either or both parties so adopted this policy.

    Continuance of this policy and the MW would be $15 in 2011 – which is why Mallard proposed 13.75 this year and $15 next year. Note Treasury forecast 5400-8100 job losses if there was an immediate increase to $15 this year – not if it was phased in over two increases. Thus there is the prospect of hundreds of thousands getting some increase if it went to $15 (and all those c$15 getting guaranteed CPI movements in future and of course upward pressure on wages usually paid higher than the minimum if their employer can afford it – and possibly less than 5000 jobs placed at risk.

    The increased tax off income and GST spending would cover the extra dole costs (and probably more generous treatment of people with non working partners as well). The needs of the many should be met.

    So yes while Labour was initially focused on reducing unemployment and accepting equal work for equal pay for younger workers, it has become a convert to increasing the minimum wage towards $15 c2011. This will be about parity with the Oz rate (now $14.32 but will increase this year and next to circa and or above $15. This is one area where government can ensure and afford pay parity (yeah sure marginal extra costs will flow on to users of services provided by MW labour, so what). Then having done that it can look at pay for teachers, nurses etc by maintaining tax rates and improving collection of taxes.
17. todd 17

    1 February 2010 at 9:44 pm

    Ive said this here before.If its such a good idea and it wont hurt jobs,increase the minimum wage to $30 per hour,why not?.Because the way I see it if you dont agree your whole story is buggered,as you will have to come out and say exactly how much before it will hurt the economy
18. Transparent 18

    1 February 2010 at 9:59 pm

    I don’t know how many of you actually try to survive on a low wage, not many I suspect. I’m a bus driver, I earn $15.03/hour. For my 40 hour 35 minute shift this week I will take home $490.00. I have an 18 year old living with me who is employed 1 day a week and who therefore relies on my wage to provide most of his life needs. I have a BA in Psychology so I don’t think I’m either stupid nor ignorant. I also happen to be a Transwoman and after 180 rejections the bus company I work for gave me a job. Where is the opportunity for me to climb the ladder, to magically become someone who actuall earns enough to pay my bills. My rent by the way is $320/week. If I could move up of course I would, please tell me how. I’m not complaining here, it’s my life and I am who I am but I get sick of the self righteous crap that passes for thought on this and so many other blogs. Start living in the real world, try supporting a teenager on my wage and you will understand the anger at a government that appears to be moving in a direction that will do nothing but make life more difficult for me while giving the really rich a tax cut that is worth more than I earn. By the way, since so many seem to dislike anonymous post (despite using pseudonyms themselves) My name is Joanne Perkins and I drive for Go Wellington, nexttime you’re on my bus, say hi
    • TightyRighty 18.1

      1 February 2010 at 10:05 pm

      180 rejections? I take it they are not from go Wellington. good on you for persevering Joanne. that’s definitely more than i could handle.
19. SPC 19

    1 February 2010 at 10:09 pm

    todd, the minimum wage is by definition at a level below the average set by the market.

    Now one can argue that increasing the minimum changes the average, and even that increasing the minimum wage above the former average will increase the average. But no one advocating increases in the minimum wage is seeking to place it near the former or existing or future average.

    Now what are the natural limits – if there is a level of inelasticity, so that one could increase pay without too much job loss, one is simply passing on costs to others.

    Back a few decades and post WW2 we had the minimum wage around 80% of the average – it is now around 50%. In those times they chose to pass on costs to afford a high minimum wage and in an era of full employment by state job subsidy and a protected domestic market this was an option they chose.

    Given that most global market price sensitive local jobs have been lost we have the option at looking back to the past. Possibly not in that extreme form now that the RB operates to maintain levels of unemployment to combat inflation, but some way.

    Those who propose a higher MW – such as the Greens have an aspiratipn for a 66% of AW level. Perhaps a minimum of 50% and maximum of 66% is the way to go – increasing the MW within that range. It would be in this range at $15.
20. prism 20

    2 February 2010 at 9:10 am

    Gee I feel left out. When I make comments or opinions on policy and give some background explanation and say what advantages would accrue from it there is often little registered interest.

    But if some smart mouth makes noticeably silly jibes everybody jumps in to take them on. What a waste of time if there are important things to think about, and not enough people of intelligence and discernment, such as in this site, doing that.

    It’s just falling for that childhood trick of tying a long string to someone’s door knocker, and then screened from view, pulling it. The householder responds and comes out, looks round surprised and goes back in. Answering once is the normal response, twice alerts you to the fact that someone is having you on. If you don’t respond quickly again then soon the child gets bored and finds another way to spend their aimless time.

Links to post

1. Troy Cairns: posted on 1 February 2010 at 3:17 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS