Boscawen’s brilliant own goal

95 comments on “Boscawen’s brilliant own goal ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Afewknowthetruth 1

   18 August 2011 at 10:54 am

   When, or perhaps we should say if, parliament starts to discuss the REAL issues -peak oil, fiat currencies, environmental collapse etc.- it may have some relevance.

   As it is, what goes on in palrliament isn’t worth following or discussing, I’m afraid ( unless you are interested in the re-arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic).

   I’m not holding my breath for any change in the attitude of parliamentarians. A small sector of society will move on, leaving them behind, playing their silly egotistical games, and the bulk of society will go down with them.
   • Tigger 1.1

     18 August 2011 at 11:21 am

     Smith hasn’t helped matters – swanning around in those draggy robes like some old English actor who’s now reduced to doing pantomimes in Swansea he makes the whole place look ancient and out of touch.
     • bbfloyd 1.1.1

       18 August 2011 at 1:28 pm

       i think he has to wear that.. oh for the days that real men wore skirts,sigh.
2. tc 2

   18 August 2011 at 11:35 am

   Who’s the grandad behind lamington man?
   • mickysavage 2.1

     18 August 2011 at 12:20 pm

     The odious John Hayes from the Waiarapa methinks.
     • ghostwhowalksnz 2.1.1

       18 August 2011 at 12:34 pm

       They didnt have time to use central casting for the support actors behind the person speaking so you got actual national party Mps
3. Craig Glen Eden 3

   18 August 2011 at 2:43 pm

   Boscawen to Goff, its Goff oh wonderful Goff, its Goff its a GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!

   What was Boscawen thinking ?

   (Sorry people it just had to be done couldnt help myself).
4. randal 4

   18 August 2011 at 3:54 pm

   micky savage. you are right although I think he has just had a bypass. from his ass to his brain. how do they do that?
5. Blue 5

   18 August 2011 at 4:00 pm

   “He looked and sounded like a Prime Minister” Well we all know its the only chance he’ll ever get. ‘Playing’ at being Prime Minister.
6. Blue 6

   18 August 2011 at 4:00 pm

   “He looked and sounded like a Prime Minister” Well we all know its the only chance he’ll ever get. ‘Playing’ at being Prime Minister.
   • Lyall 6.1

     18 August 2011 at 4:38 pm

     Seems it’s the current PM who is playing at the role, when he’s not running out ’cause he’s too scared to answer tough questions.
     • Ianupnorth 6.1.1

       18 August 2011 at 7:46 pm

       He’s playing at celebrity PM, has more coverage in Woman’s day than Lindsay Lohan, Duchess Kate and her sister Pippa
7. Marjorie Dawe 7

   18 August 2011 at 4:25 pm

   At least you can understand him when he speaks.
   • Descendant Of Smith 7.1

     18 August 2011 at 7:18 pm

     The PM seems rather proud of our young males and their sexual exploits.

     Somewhat surprised to hear him saying at around 4:51 that 60% are “at school, university, training or studding of some sort”.

     I thought til now National was concerned about young people having children.
8. Reality Bytes 8

   18 August 2011 at 9:40 pm

   I agree, that was an outstanding performance from Mr Goff. If he can continue that kinda attitude, he has a shot at being the next PM. That Boscowen whoever he is guy (leader of Act? I thought Brash was the leader of the Act party, weird) sounded pretty freaked out and shaky after getting his ass handed to him by Mr G. Even Mr Smith found it very amusing in-spite of his moderatoing duties.

   Then Key droned on about something meaningless at the end that noone cared about.

   If Goff behaves like this more regularly he will pose a serious challenge to the nActs.
9. Thomas 9

   18 August 2011 at 10:21 pm

   In all fairness, Goff didn’t answer the question. The question was about responsibility for the problem, not the size of the problem. Goff just said that it happened after Labour left office. The implication being that the effects of Labour’s policies ended the moment they lost the election.
   • McFlock 9.1

     18 August 2011 at 10:37 pm

     Well, the effects of Labour’s policies largely ended when National borrowed to cut taxes for the rich, raised GST (when they said they wouldn’t), introduced fire at will, and generally fucked up the economy. If we are indeed looking at things in all fairness, when Labour left office the biggest gripes tories could come up with were lightbulbs and the fact they could no longer rape prostitutes with impunity legalised prostitution.
     • Thomas 9.1.1

       18 August 2011 at 10:45 pm

       Don’t change the subject. The question was specifically about youth unemployment.

       Youth rates were abolished in April 2008 and the election was in November 2008. Goff only accepts responsibility for those seven months and dumps responsibility for the past 2.5 years on Key.

       Economic policy doesn’t work overnight. It takes years to have full effect.
       • Reality Bytes 9.1.1.1

         18 August 2011 at 10:57 pm

         Which perhaps renders the original question pointless.

         “Economic policy doesn’t work overnight. It takes years to have full effect.”

         So why then does this Mr B nActster guy even bother asking the question in the first place then?

         Goff handled it well. That’s the point of interest in this article. That if Goff keeps up this attitude, he’ll come across as a solid potential challeger for next PM position.
         • Thomas 9.1.1.1.1

           18 August 2011 at 11:05 pm

           Indeed, Goff dodged the question, showing that he is slimy enough to be PM.
           • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.1.1

             18 August 2011 at 11:09 pm

             Goff is Prime Minister material. Key is Prime Mincer material.

             I do admit that Key would be the far more popular host of NZ Idol however.
           • Reality Bytes 9.1.1.1.1.2

             18 August 2011 at 11:17 pm

             maybe so, but we both agree he has the potential to PM.

             He came across as very Obamaish* pardon any pun.

             *winner/charasimatic.
       • McFlock 9.1.1.2

         18 August 2011 at 10:59 pm

         To argue that youth rates are the significant factor in youth unemployemnt when there have been so many other global and NZ factors in the past 3 years, including willful decisions to ship work out of NZ (trains being a case in point) is a long bow to draw. To draw that bow when there is no real-world evidence to support it (as eloquently demonstrated in posts here at the Standard around that time – there’s just some overly pessimistic tory hypothesizing about idealised supply/demand labour markets) is actually quite retarded.
         • Thomas 9.1.1.2.1

           18 August 2011 at 11:09 pm

           Yes, excellent, you are starting to address the question. Boscawen’s question was about how much of an impact abolishing youth rates had compared to other factors.

           Suggesting that minimum wages have no impact on unemployment is completely baseless. If that logic worked, then a $100/hour minimum wage would be a good idea.
           • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.2.1.1

             18 August 2011 at 11:16 pm

             Suggesting that minimum wages have no impact on unemployment is completely baseless. If that logic worked, then a $100/hour minimum wage would be a good idea.

             Yes, because if roasting chicken drumsticks for 35 minutes is a good idea, so must roasting them for 35 hours.

             You are a moron.

             A linear thinking two dimensional moron.

             Hey if brushing your teeth twice a day works well, so must brushing your teeth 25 times a day, right?

             Idiot.
             • Thomas …

               18 August 2011 at 11:44 pm

               CV: Haha! You missed the point of my post and then expressed the same point yourself. That shows that you’re all talk and no listen. You are the moron.

               Clearly, a $1/hour minimum wage is a good idea, but $100/hour isn’t. So you can’t just label objection to high minimum wages as “overly pessimistic tory hypothesizing about idealised supply/demand labour markets”. If you want to defend $13/hour, you need to actually show that the positive effects outweigh the negative effects (unemployment, inflation). Anyone can see that there are negative effects; to deny them entirely would be to advocate $100/hour. Given that youth unemployment and inflation are at record-setting levels, that’s a hard argument to win.

               So where is this “real-world evidence” you’re talking about McFlock? Anyone who actually employs unskilled 16-year-olds knows that $13/hour is too much.
               • McFlock …

                 19 August 2011 at 12:31 pm

                 “So where is this “real-world evidence” you’re talking about McFlock? ”

                 You’re the one supporting the assertion that removal of age discrimination in the minimum wage causes youth unemployment. With only anecdotal evidence and baseless almost religious belief (“Anyone who actually employs unskilled 16-year-olds knows that $13/hour is too much”) to support your case. Let me put it this way – there is evidence that paying workers more improves their productivity (except managers and bankers, of course) – this is the basis of commission sales etc. What empirical evidence is there that a modest increase in minimum wages actually impacts at all on unemployment? Because at the moment we have a demostrated positive and your unsupported negative hypothesis. I’ll follow the evidence, thanks.
                  
                 Why does an unskilled 16yo deserve less money than an unskilled 18yo?
                   
                 My point is not about a $100p.h. minimum wage – it was that the removal of an arbitrary age limit (so that people are paid according to their skills, not their wage)  with a gross difference to the employer of a couple of bucks an hour will have less impact than the government policies of the last 3 years. Like 100-odd jobs from already depressed areas being sent overseas by an SOE, combined with a reduction in demand due to a tax increase of 2.5% on all goods and services, oh, and a fucking massive global financial meltdown. But no, you reckon it’s down to 16 and 17 year olds being paid a little bit more. What about the 18,19,20,21,22,23, and 24 year olds?
                  
                  Thomas, you are a fine example of the average tory supporter.  
                 • Thomas …

                   19 August 2011 at 3:01 pm

                   McFlock: You accuse me of having “anecdotal evidence and baseless almost religious belief”. Yet where is your evidence? Double standard?

                   Let’s actually look at some evidence.
                   (i) http://www.dol.govt.nz/er/pay/backgroundpapers/2010/minimum-wage-review-2010.pdf
                   (ii) https://econfix.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/youth-adult-unemp.gif
                   (iii) http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_StJkwRhDuIs/S29VOry6DYI/AAAAAAAAAMc/VYEclIvaWPQ/s1600-h/ue.JPG
                   (iv) http://www.dol.govt.nz/er/pay/minimumwage/previousminimum.asp

                   Let’s talk about discrimination. The level of youth (<25) unemployment in NZ is four times the level of adult unemployment. Only 1.1% of adult workers are on the minimum wage, whereas 15.4% of 18-19-yos and 4.5% of 20-24-yos are.
                   (a) What does that tell us? The NZ labour market discriminates against youth.
                   (b) Why is that? Youth are unskilled and inexperienced and are therefore unable to command high wages.
                   (c) Why is youth unemployment at its highest level on record? Because youth minimum wages are also at record highs.
                   (d) Historically youth unemployment was about 2-3 times adult unemployment. Why did it suddenly jump to 4 times? Because the youth minimum wage was rapidly increased by Labour, more than doubling since 2002.
                   (e) Why is NZ at the top of the OECD in this respect? We are also at the top of the OECD in terms of minimum wages. As of 2008, only France has a higher minimum wage relative to the median wage.
                   (f) How do we fix it? By removing the law that prevents people gaining skills and experience while working $12.99/hour.

                   The writing is on the wall. So McFlock, do you have a better answers to (a-f)?

                   Minimum wages are discriminatory in all their forms.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     19 August 2011 at 3:14 pm

                     – Raise the minimum wage to $15/hour
                     – Institute 5 weeks annual leave as standard
                     – Increase maternity leave to 26 weeks and make it available to fathers as well
                     – Increase the income tax rate on every dollar earned over 10x the median income to 49%
                     – Annual sick leave days to 6 days per year, cumulative to a maximum of 60 days,

                     Minimum wages are discriminatory in all their forms.

                     Don’t use the language of the Left to bash workers you fucker
                   • McFlock …

                     19 August 2011 at 3:40 pm

                     no double standard – you made the assertion, you provide evidence to do so. Only took you 6 attempts to get around to it.

                     Your graphs show that youth have a higher rate of unemployment than older adults – this is not the issue. Bosco P. Coltrane and yourself are suggesting a cause for this. Funnily enough, your own “evidence” states “Evidence regarding the impact of increasing the minimum wage on employment is mixed.” (DoL Minimum Wage Review 2010, p12).

                     Allow me to retort with slightly more relevant links: here here and here

                     anyway:

                     (a) It tells us the labour market rewards experience and competence – irrelevant of age
                     (b) the wage for the job should be the same regardless of who is doing it – an underskilled pensioner or an underskilled youth
                     (c) cause doesn’t follow – you’re forgetting the global crunch and our beloved government relying on a cycleway to provide employment
                     (d) It jumped at the same time that general unemployment jumped – unemployed train builders are becoming cleaners
                     (e) again, cause doesn’t follow. You’re focussing on one aspect of the economy, and ignoring the effects on an export-led economy when the global engine room tanks and has a massive currency devaluation.
                     (f) How do we fix it? Elect a competent government, preferably the Alliance but Labour would be better than the current moron-brigade.
                   • Thomas …

                     19 August 2011 at 11:10 pm

                     McFlock: The double standard is the following. We agree that $1/hour is harmless, but $100/hour is harmful. Ergo, there is some point at which the positive and negative effects balance out. The question is where. You promulgate the official dogma that $13/hour or higher—$15/hour—is the right number, as proclaimed by Cardinal Goff in the edict of Labour. But, when I prompt you to justify this assertion, you accuse me of holding a “baseless almost religious belief”.

                     The question of minimum wages is quantitative, not qualitative. Thus you need to justify your claim with numbers, statistics, and solid reasoning, not ideology and dogma.

                     The DoL report clearly suggests that minimum wages cost thousands of jobs. Your lone quote is out of context. Now let’s look at the articles you cited.

                     The “Minimum wage myths: unemployment” article is a clear example of missing the above point. It makes no reference to relevant numbers: It cites surveys of economists asking the question “a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers”—surely the responses would have been vastly different if $100/hour had been specified. It goes on to cite an article from the US, where minimum wages are significantly lower than they are here (and riddled with exemptions). The only mildly relevant data dates from 1975, and is false; unemployment began to skyrocket two years later. The article concludes with some standard leftist rhetoric about the right being a big conspiracy.

                     “Nats refuse to face their record on youth” is equally devoid of meaning. It cycles back to this argument—the assertion that National is responsible for the long-term effects of Labour’s policy.

                     You have provided nothing to support your argument. You have provided no explanation for why youth unemployment is so high. You have your head in the sand about youth unemployment.

                     You really think that employers will employ a teenage high school dropout for $13/hour+holiday pay+sick pay+kiwisaver contributions+ACC+etc. For a full-time employee, that works out to about $30,000 per year. That’s about how much I earn despite having a good science degree.
                   • McFlock …

                     20 August 2011 at 12:08 am

                     lol, thomas.
                      
                     You started this discussion by saying that Boscawen had a point. You seriously think you can accuse others of supplying no qualitative evidence when it took you half a dozen posts to get around to it? Talk about “double standards”. And I actually linked to Puddlegum’s comment (nats-refuse-to-face-their-record-on-youth/#comment-365643) where PG points to evidence (hint: NEET) that 20-24yo have been more adversely affected than the 15-19yo who received the benefit of removal of age discrimination.
                       
                     The doL review clearly states that the minimum wage / unemployment issue is far from definite, but (as you do for policy) provided a range of estimates based on scratchy data. Which hasn’t happened to anywhere near that degree, if you look at PG’s links.
                      
                     You rest entirely on a “they raised the minimum wage, unemployment up, case proved” economic model. Your model completely fails to account for the GFC and government job-not-creation policy.
                        
                       
                     $30k per year when you have a “good” degree? For fulltime work?  And you’re still a tory?
                   • Thomas …

                     20 August 2011 at 12:45 am

                     McFlock: No one asked me for evidence. And the dire situation is so obvious that I didn’t think I needed to provide links to clarify it.

                     Boscawen still had a point. Goff dodged the question. He could have at least said “Minimum wages have no effect on unemployment. Labour therefore accepts no responsibility.”

                     Yes, I accept that the data is sketchy. But on balance it supports me more than it does you. Moreover, you are asserting that there is no connection whatsoever between current minimum wages and unemployment. That puts the onus on you to defend that statement. Or at the very least explain why youth unemployment is so high if not for that reason.

                     Yes, the GFC has had a big effect. But it has hit youth particularly hard. Why?

                     Compare the current situation to the aftermath of Black Monday in the late 80s and early 90s. That crisis hit NZ harder than this one—the total unemployement rate was higher. Yet youth unemployment was lower. So why did this crisis affect youth more severely than Black Monday?

                     Also Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson were in full swing back then. So you can’t credit the left with keeping youth unemployment lower back then.

                     My job (as a research assistant) is interesting and I am learning lots; that makes up for the pay. I am sacrificing short-term financial gain for a long-term gain in experience and useful skills. I’m lucky that I can make that trade-off Minimum wages mean that many people are unable to take a low-paying job for the experience and non-financial benefits.
                   • Eddie …

                     20 August 2011 at 12:58 am

                     Hey a research assistant, cool. So research this. What was the 15-19 population in 1991 and what was the number of 15-19 unemployed?

                     Infoshare will tell you they are both pretty much the same as now.

                     So, how come the youth unemployment rate is now much higher than it was then, relative to the general unemployment rate?

                     Simple. A smaller portion of young people are in the labourforce. You have the unemployment level in the youth population is at a similar ratio to the general rate as it was back then, but the unemployment rate is number of unemployed/number in labour force. That’s artificially raised by the fact that more young people aren’t participating in the labour force at all now – more are staying in school and study than in 1991 – without more people actually being unemployed.

                     I hope you’re enjoying this evidence-based discussion 🙂 You’ll never see the likes on KB
                   • McFlock …

                     20 August 2011 at 1:09 am

                     First of all, I’m arguing that other factors have had greater effect on unemployment than the slight minimum wage increase for youths – GFC and government policy being but two.
                     What statement do I have to prove?     “To argue that youth rates are the significant factor in youth unemployemnt when there have been so many other global and NZ factors in the past 3 years, including willful decisions to ship work out of NZ (trains being a case in point) is a long bow to draw. To draw that bow when there is no real-world evidence to support it (as eloquently demonstrated in posts here at the Standard around that time – there’s just some overly pessimistic tory hypothesizing about idealised supply/demand labour markets) is actually quite retarded.” – seems quite reasonable to be.
                      
                     The crash in 1987 was halfway through Douglas and before Richardson, before the inaccessibility fo education due to skyrocketing fees, before the employment contracts act, and before the massive benefit cuts of ruthenasia. The 1987 crash also had different origins and there was quite a bit more regulation around currency transfers and so on.  If anything, the repercussions of the 1987 crash demonstrate that the impact is less severe when there is still a halfway decent welfare state and education system.
                       You’re an RA? So your back of the envelope guesses as to employer costs of a couple of dollars an hour increase in minimum wage being $30k were not actually equivalent to an upper middle class income. Sweet.
                      
                      
                   • mik e …

                     21 August 2011 at 4:37 pm

                     Thomas Spain has youth wages and has 65% youth unemployment Germany has the lowest youth unemployment in the OECD no youth wages but does have youth transition from school to work .Like we should +we should have school leaving age at 18. Another myth can be dispelled the increase in unemployed of 40 to 54 year olds has been the same as youth rates of unemployment increase ,so taking your argument they should be on youth wages as well. Its also proven that if you start people off on low wages they stay in low wage jobs most of their lives no wonder the rights policies will never have us catching Australia!
               • Colonial Viper …

                 19 August 2011 at 10:44 pm

                 Clearly, a $1/hour minimum wage is a good idea

                 Only for capitalists, its shit for the serf class you want to create.

                 Listen up Asshole when the crowd with pitchforks turn up on your door step.

                 CV: Haha! You missed the point of my post and then expressed the same point yourself. That shows that you’re all talk and no listen. You are the moron.

                 ? You missed the point of my reply. Which was your use of stupidity to forward the cause of an elite aristocratic class and the creation of a class of debt and wage serfs.
                 • McFlock …

                   19 August 2011 at 10:53 pm

                   Anyone who argues with a current Act supporter deserves the name “Dances with Fucktards”.
                   • Thomas …

                     19 August 2011 at 11:34 pm

                     McFlock and CV: I try to listen to both sides of arguments. I post on right- and left-wing forums. I have debated with ACT, National, Labour, Maori, Mana, and Green supporters.

                     One trend I have noticed is that, when I debate on right-wing forums, there are many links to relevant evidence, points are conceded, the conversation stays on topic, I have never even once been sworn at, and I am rarely insulted. On the other hand, when I debate on left-wing forums like this one, I have to make an effort to solicit any evidence or coherent argument, no one is willing to agree on basic points (you refused to agree that $100/hour is bad, instead you just avoided the point), wild assertions are thrown around that derail the discussion, I am regularly sworn at (and now CV has suggested violence), and I am continually insulted. To add to the farce, the left tries to portray itself as enlightened, intellectual, peaceful, and caring, while smearning the right as dogmatic, evil, violent, and uneducated.

                     I am a very liberal person; my friends and family are predominantly left-wing; and I voted for Labour in 2008. But in the past few years I have become more politically aware. Initially I was very left-wing. However, when I listened to both sides of the argument, one side was reasoned, the other dogmatic. I’ve changed sides and intend to vote for ACT in November.

                     I suggest that you take a good hard look at yourselves. Stop shouting and try to *understand* the other side of the argument. Right-wingers are not evil gremlins or part of some conspiracy. To suggest that is to evade your intellectual responsibility to address their arguments.

                     [lprent: Doesn’t sound like any right wing blog I have ever been in. It reads more like wishful thinking than reality for any left leaner. Don’t you ever wonder why the number of left commentators on such sites is so low?

                     But the rules around here are outlined in the policy. Moderators set the wide outside bounds. ]
                   • Eddie …

                     19 August 2011 at 11:48 pm

                     can you tell me which of ACT/Nat policies you like?

                     Selling our profitable assets offshore to avoid lower cost debt
                     The race-baiting that made Brash’s political career and which he has resurrected
                     or lowering the wages for young workers, so that the basic rule – same pay, for same work is broken.

                     you can happily disagree over exactly where the minimum wage should be but that doesn’t mean you need to go Tory or vote for the racist ACT party.

                     My position is to support it being higher unless there is evidence that such a change would do more harm than good – DoL admits it has no evidence to support its contention that a $15hr minimum wage would cost 4,000 jobs, while boosting the wages of quarter of a million people, and even that equation looks like more benefit than cost.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     19 August 2011 at 11:51 pm

                     One trend I have noticed is that, when I debate on right-wing forums, there are many links to relevant evidence, points are conceded, the conversation stays on topic, I have never even once been sworn at, and I am rarely insulted.

                     Oh fuck off, gives us links then to 3 Right Wing NZ forums where you get lots of links to “evidence” during debate and are never once sworn at as the fucktard advocate for failed neoclassical Chicago school economics.

                     On a lighter note, the only principle the Right Wing has nowadays is enriching the top 1% of the population at the expense of everyone else.
                   • Thomas …

                     20 August 2011 at 12:08 am

                     Eddie:
                     First your points.
                     * Debt is not lower cost than selling assets. Would you rather spend your savings or take out a loan?
                     * I fail to see how one law for all is race-baiting. I once tried explaining to an American and an Indian that “one law for all” is seen as racist and divisive by some NZers. They were perplexed.
                     * The minimum wage makes it harder to get a first job, especially if you are unskilled. This law benefits those who already have jobs, but makes it very hard to enter the labour market. So it hurts the very poorest members of our society. Anyone who really cares about the poor would support lowering the minimum wage. It only benefits the (lower) middle class and they are overwhelmingly the supporters of it.
                     * The exact value of the minimum wage is the central issue. On the balance of evidence, I think it is too high at $13/hour. Labour and the Greens want to raise it to $15/hour; I cannot in good conscience support that.
                     * The DoL estimates that raising to $15/hour would cost 4860-6970 jobs *in the first year alone*. It admits that this number is hard to estimate, but that’s the best estimate they can make.

                     Further policies I like:
                     * Currently anyone can object to what you do on your own land under the RMA. For example, I could object to your resource consent application to extend your house, even though I don’t know you. ACT wants to ensure that objectors must have a tangible interest in the application.
                     * Allowing parents to have more input into their childrens’ schooling, by giving them more choice about where to send their children.
                     * Supporting economic growth by improving government efficiency and encouraging investment.
                   • McFlock …

                     20 August 2011 at 12:23 am

                     Thomas,
                     Personally, I swear because A) I’m a prick; and B) ACT policies in particular, but also National, MP and even some labour policies, kill people by inaction. It is that simple. Even VSM – statistically, sooner or later, one student in a population will take their own life. The less support, the more likely that happens. You whine about CV’s pitchfork comment – learn some history. Revolutions kill, and vast inequality makes revolution more likely (check out Gwynn Dyer, an international affairs commentator who linked food prices in egypt with the chance of widespread discontent a year or two back).
                           
                       
                     Learn how to read links, how to search for relevant data, how to skim read policy documents, and realise that for many people here there arguments are not hypothetical – many people have been personally fucked over by this “society” in the last 20 years, even if now we are doing better than most.
                       
                     You take rude words personally? I take living on rice for 3 months, with no power and case managers who were not permitted to advise clients of their entitlements pretty damned personally as well.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     20 August 2011 at 12:25 am

                     * Debt is not lower cost than selling assets. Would you rather spend your savings or take out a loan?

                     you’re a fucking retard for thinking that the Government cannot get a loan for cheaper than you can.

                     fact: our power SOEs generate a higher ROI than the cost of NZ govt debt.

                     Selling a higher earning asset to payoff cheaper debt is plain stupid.

                     Like you and English.

                     BTW where are the links to your “evidence based” polite RWNJ forums? Come on don’t disappoint us Mr “I advocate for a failed economic ideology which has brought down the western powers” Thomas.

                     EDIT I am truly amazed that Thomas thinks that the working class should take being f*&^%*cked up the ass by his bankster kind, in a polite, calm and gracious manner.
                   • Thomas …

                     20 August 2011 at 12:26 am

                     CV: Here are plenty: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/ (And I’m not linking to my facebook profile.)

                     Again with your baseless and ridiculous statements “On a lighter note, the only principle the Right Wing has nowadays is enriching the top 1% of the population at the expense of everyone else.” You are the worst offender on this forum.
                   • Eddie …

                     20 August 2011 at 12:31 am

                     * Debt is not lower cost than selling assets. Would you rather spend your savings or take out a loan?
                     – It would depend on the relative costs. Treasury says the the SOEs are earning returns in the teens. The cost of government borrowing is 5%. You do the maths.

                     * I fail to see how one law for all is race-baiting. I once tried explaining to an American and an Indian that “one law for all” is seen as racist and divisive by some NZers. They were perplexed.
                     – you fail to see how full page ads from the party funded by the richest while NZers attacking the ‘privilege’ of one group of the poor on the basis of their race, to divide the poor against each other is race-baiting? Ask a Maori friend how they feel about it.

                     * The minimum wage makes it harder to get a first job, especially if you are unskilled. This law benefits those who already have jobs, but makes it very hard to enter the labour market. So it hurts the very poorest members of our society. Anyone who really cares about the poor would support lowering the minimum wage. It only benefits the (lower) middle class and they are overwhelmingly the supporters of it.
                     – There’s no evidence that the elimination of the youth minimum wage has made it harder to get work for young people. Indeed, when the law was passed the right opposed it on the basis it would make young people more likely to leave school and go into work. When your side’s line turns on its head like that, it’s probably not based in reality.

                     * The exact value of the minimum wage is the central issue. On the balance of evidence, I think it is too high at $13/hour. Labour and the Greens want to raise it to $15/hour; I cannot in good conscience support that.
                     * The DoL estimates that raising to $15/hour would cost 4860-6970 jobs *in the first year alone*. It admits that this number is hard to estimate, but that’s the best estimate they can make.
                     – No, it’s not a one year estimate, it’s an all time estimate. And, really, it’s a guess. “There is little existing empirical evidence on the impact of minimum wages on productivity”. DoL has never provided any evidence of the impact of previous minimum wage changes on job growth. If you want to deny quarter of a million people a wage rise to meet the rising cost of living based on DoL’s guess, that’s your choice.

                     * Currently anyone can object to what you do on your own land under the RMA. For example, I could object to your resource consent application to extend your house, even though I don’t know you. ACT wants to ensure that objectors must have a tangible interest in the application.
                     – Currently, you can object if someone does certain things that trigger the RMA on their land. Brash talks about ‘not being allowed to paint your house the colour you want’. Well, should I be allowed to paint my house in swastikas and swear words if it can be seen from public space? think about it from first principles: it’s my right to paint my house and it’s everyone else’s right not to be subjected to offensive material while enjoying public space.

                     * Allowing parents to have more input into their childrens’ schooling, by giving them more choice about where to send their children.
                     – you’ll have to explain to me what ‘more choice’ you’re offering lower decile families. It seems like all you’re doing is offering the families that can afford the transport costs the chance to get their kids away from the poorer kids.

                     * Supporting economic growth by improving government efficiency and encouraging investment.
                     – The Right has an appalling record on economic growth compared to the Left. There was a post on it here recently – http://thestandard.org.nz/who-grows-better-labour-or-national/
                   • Eddie …

                     20 August 2011 at 12:33 am

                     CV. drop the insulting attitude.
                   • Thomas …

                     20 August 2011 at 12:54 am

                     McFlock: Swearing, rudeness, and personal insults don’t bother me. If they did, I’d bugger off. However, they are indicative of the lack of quality discussion. They are usually used when a serious rebuttal cannot be found.

                     Oh yes, VSM is another fantastic policy. It will greatly improve student unions. The OUSA in Otago started an audit of its activities to see how it can improve its services while costing students less. They did this because they were afraid of VSM forcing them to. So VSM has improved student services before it was even passed!

                     The important thing about VSM is not that students will quit, it is that they can threaten to quit if the union is not doing a good job. I strongly doubt that student unions will disappear; on the contrary, VSM will make them better and stronger.

                     Learn how to read links, how to search for relevant data, how to skim read policy documents, and realise that for many people here there arguments are not hypothetical

                     In other words, trust me and go find the evidence yourself.
                   • McFlock …

                     20 August 2011 at 1:18 am

                     Swearing is punctuation – not directly pertinent to discussion quality. If it doesn’t bother you, why bring it up?
                     If you read Critic on campus at otago and had more than a passing look at the review issue, you would have noted that it A) was regardless as to whether VSM passes and additional to OUSA’s ongoing review programme; and B)was an expensive piece of corporate toilet paper (recommended 3 changes, 2 rejected, 1 retarded recommendation put into effect so prepare for a clusterfuck next orientation).
                     OUSA’s main contingency for VSM is trying to provide as many services as possible with an 80%drop in membership fees.

                      
                     “In other words, trust me and go find the evidence yourself.”
                     No, in other words, if I link to a particular comment that links to primary sources showing your employment effects to be strongest amongst people not actually affected by the increase in minimum wage for youth, I’m not actually linking to the main slightly irrelevant post much farther up the thread.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     20 August 2011 at 1:24 am

                     Mr Thomas

                     You are an advocate for a failed and theoretically corrupt neoliberal economic theory. One which has caused the destruction of western economic powers in order to enrich the top 1%. Give it up mate.

                     🙂

                     CV. drop the insulting attitude.

                     Screw you, dumbass. Go wreck a poor African economy and facilitate the transfer of wealth to a rich multin-national corporation. Keep working for the moneyed capitalists mate, see how long that keeps your family fed in a world of social collapse.
                   • Thomas …

                     20 August 2011 at 1:25 am

                     Eddie: I’m going to sleep now so I’ll just briefly address some of your points.

                     SOE shares will be sold on a competitive market. What determines the market price? Simple: profitability. Thus the price will be competitive with other investments, such as government debt.

                     Don’t confuse legal privilege (what ACT opposes and *some* Maori have) with socio-economic privilege, which Maori don’t have. Reserved seats etc. benefit a small minority of Maori—the “radicals”—and hurt everyone else.

                     Yes, if someone’s actions hurt you, then you should have the right to complain under the RMA; and ACT supports that. The question is whether you should be allowed to complain if you are unable to prove that you will be adversely affected. (Also, swastikas would not come under the RMA, it would come under inciting hatred, which is a different law.)

                     Rich people always have choice. They can afford to move to a better school zone or maybe even pay for private schooling. But poor people don’t currently have that choice. I was talking to someone two days ago. She moved from east to west christchurch because of the earthquake. She noted that the western school was much much better. She had to spend time teaching her children to read because the eastern school had failed. I didn’t ask, but I suspect that she would be willing to pay for the bus fare to send her kids to a better, more distant school.

                     Economic growth gets back to the original argument. Does National’s record reflect National policies or the policies it inherited? I contend that it takes about one business cycle for the full effect of policy to be felt. But a business cycle is about 10-years—about the length of a three-term government. Moreover, Muldoon was a socialist, dumping him on the right is dishonest. Also, the economic climate pre-1973 is incomparable with the current economic climate.

                     Good night.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     20 August 2011 at 1:41 am

                     SOE shares will be sold on a competitive market. What determines the market price? Simple: profitability. Thus the price will be competitive with other investments, such as government debt.

                     You’re an idiot for advocating the sale of strategic energy assets for worthless freshly printed, instantaneously depreciating foreign fiat cuurency.

                     Actually, you’re not an idiot, you’re an economy traitor.

                     btw how do you feel advocating that your country sell its strategic energy assets, assets which generate a higher ROI than the debt the proceeds will service?

                     I don’t feel that the death penalty should exist in a civilised society, but a significant prison term for economic treason against your own people would be appropriate. Sweet dreams mr Thomas.
                   • Thomas …

                     20 August 2011 at 11:51 am

                     McFlock: You are arguing that minimum wages are a insignificant cause of unemployment. So far you haven’t conceded that they are a cause at all. But surely you realise that *at some point* they do start to have a noticable effect. So where is that point? and why? Do you have any *reason* to believe this? So far you haven’t really provided much.

                     I read Puddleglum’s NEET comment. I’m not sure what you are trying to prove there. Yes there are different statistics. Are you disputing that youth unemployment is at record levels? The first page PG links indicates that youth labour force participation has decreased, presumably they are going into education. Isn’t that what Labour wants? unemployed youth in education or training?

                     Here is a suggestion. Dump minimum wages completely. And instead the government tops up everyone’s earnings—a guaranteed minimum income scheme. That way we provide welfare without making it harder to enter the labour market. McFlock, do you think that this is an improvement over the status quo?

                     Re. VSM:
                     * My friends at Otago’s Christchurch campus receive nothing from the OUSA. There is nothing OUSA-related in Christchurch—the most they get is occaisional spam. Yet they are forced to pay $90/year for that nothing. They don’t even bother to vote. So you think that is fair.
                     * You also think it is fair that the OUSA president is paid 30k out of the poor students’ pockets.
                     * You also think it is fair that the OUSA president is campaigning against VSM with the money that the OUSA members pay. Adding insult to injury, many of those members support VSM, yet they are being forced to finance a campaign against it.
                     * OUSA members are supposedly represented by the president, as he proudly claims. Yet how many students voted for him? I bet about 5%. Interestingly, I can’t find the number online—so much for transparency.
                     * By opposing VSM you are arguing that students don’t know what’s good for them. They are incapable of deciding whether or not the OUSA is providing value for money. Isn’t that a bit paternalistic? Aren’t students supposed to be some of the brightest members of society?

                     lprent: I do tend to be more active on left-wing forums than right-wing forums, as I seek out those that disagree with me. Maybe it is just CV, but I do feel that this place particularly is filled with charged emotion, rather than reasoned debate.

                     CV: Let me guess. You think it is inhumane to spend money on healthcare, education, and welfare when it could be better spent on a convicted murderer rotting away in jail.
                   • McFlock …

                     20 August 2011 at 5:34 pm

                     Thomas, the only person who has used the word “insignificant” is you. My position has always been that when YOU attribute a large increase in unemployment to elimination of age discrimination, you are deliberately ignoring the elephant in the global economy that has increased unemployment for EVERYONE. You are also ignoring the impact of government policy on job growth. If youth unemployment suddenly skyrocketed after everyone else found jobs, you might have a point – but I’m not sure your hypothesis has addressed all likely confounding factors. The ball is in your court.
                           
                     As for VSM, students currently do choose, democratically, whether they want to go to a university that has freeloaders sucking what few resources can be provided, or whether everyone should pay. ACT hate democracy, so want to make the government choose for students. All the issues that you brought up can have and are being adressed through regular democratic mechanisms – e.g. the ousa position on VSM was an explicit direction from its membership. But then ACT hate democracy, so don’t want students deciding what the students’ association should do.
                   • Thomas …

                     20 August 2011 at 8:34 pm

                     McFlock: You used the word significant with the implication being negative. Now the global economy is definitely a significant factor. But I’ll summarize why I think that empirically and logically minimum wages are also a significant factor.

                     If youth unemployment suddenly skyrocketed after everyone else found jobs, you might have a point.

                     That is precisely the crux of my evidence. In terms of overall unemployment, this crisis is half as bad as Black Monday. But youth unemployment is higher now than then. And, if we look internationally we see the same picture: compared to the rest of the OECD, unemployment is particularly focused on youth in NZ. Why is this crisis particularly targeting youth?

                     I see no alternative explanation other than that our labour market is hard to enter—getting a first job is tough. And minimum wages are definitely a big contributor to that—relative to the median wage our minimum wage is the second-highest in the OECD.

                     Now let’s talk logically. Full time at $13/hour is about 27k. And you have to add holiday and sick pay, kiwisaver contributions, ACC and all that. Now remember that is a *starting* wage. That is what employers need to pay someone fresh from dropping out of high school. I don’t have statistics to quote, but it seems logical that employers won’t pay that.

                     So what might employers do instead of hiring people? Take a hypothetical supermarket. (i) They might just decide that 9 shelf-stockers suffice, when they might have hired 10. (ii) They might put up with longer queues and have fewer checkouts. (iii) Or they might get some of those damn machines. (iv) They might ask customers to walk a bit further to get their shopping trolleys and do without someone to move them to the most convenient location. (v) Or they might raise prices. In the end the supermarket will hire fewer people by (i) deciding that some services are a luxury, (ii) changing work patterns, (iii) finding substitutes, (iv) passing the work to the customer, or (v) passing the cost to the customer.

                     Here is what I find most inefficient about minimum wages. They only help people at the start of their career. Only 1.1% of people 25 or older are on minimum wage. So their benefit is really short-term. But they hurt people in the long term by preventing people from starting their careers in the first place. If you cannot get a first job because you lack the skills and experience to be worth 30k, then you will never get a second or third job that pays above minimum wage.

                     Now to VSM: Your appeal to democracy is disingenious. What is the turnout at student union elections? Statistics are hard to find, but the examples I’ve seen have been under 10%.

                     And so what? If the majority of Otago students in Dunedin vote that the minority of students in Christchurch should pay for services that they are unable to receive, is that fair? If the majority of Otago students oppose VSM, should they be allowed to force the minority of students who support VSM to pay for protests against it? This is about freedom and I wouldn’t let a tyranny of the majority stifle it.

                     So what is your angle? Do you think student unions are good? If so, then why are they afraid of people leaving? If not, why are they worth defending? You can’t have it both ways.
                   • McFlock …

                     20 August 2011 at 10:20 pm

                     Thomas – funny you bring up supermarkets.  My local has ditched half a dozen checkout aisles in favour of self-checkout machines. Add “technological advances” to the list of “other crap that can affect youth employment”. And what proportion of minimum wage jobs are fulltime?
                     The fact is that the 15-19yo unemployment rate increased by about 4/5  since June ’08 (15.4%-27.6%). The 20-24yo rate increased by 2/3 (6.8-11.2%), but then they started much lower in the first place so the proportions are skewed a bit (a stats blip within a percent would take it up to 15-19 proportions). How much of these increases are you attributing to minimum wage vs GFC, mechanisation and government employment policies (e.g. boosting apprenticeships)? You came in here with a position – put up.
                      
                     English101: saying something is not “the significant factor” merely implies that other factors are more significant. “Not the biggest moron in the room” does not mean “genius”.
                      
                     As for VSM – it’s not like elections aren’t advertised or are restricted to only some members. What level of turnout invalidates a freely attended, well advertised election, in your political paradigm? At what level don’t votes count?
                     As for the “if it is good, people will join” argument, it’s naive bullshit. If you have no money because you live on $170pw, and you can get representation on committees and class reps organised and paid for by other students, freeloading becomes a significant temptation.
                      
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     20 August 2011 at 10:37 pm

                     And, if we look internationally we see the same picture: compared to the rest of the OECD, unemployment is particularly focused on youth in NZ. Why is this crisis particularly targeting youth?

                     I see no alternative explanation other than that our labour market is hard to enter

                     UNIMAGINATIVE BULLSHIT

                     A simple alternative explanation is that excessive numbers of older experienced and well qualified job seekers currently face long term unemployment, and have been willing to settle for the entry level jobs in the marketplace simply to get a wage, any wage, and are therefore pushing out younger candidates.

                     And minimum wages are definitely a big contributor to that—relative to the median wage our minimum wage is the second-highest in the OECD.

                     The answer is to raise the median wage, not drop the minimum wage. Asshole.
                   • Thomas …

                     20 August 2011 at 11:10 pm

                     McFlock: Firstly, don’t fall for the Luddite fallacy.

                     Getting an accurate estimate of the cost of minimum wages is hard. Eric Crampton has estimated that about 12,000 jobs were lost (or rather not created) because of the abolition of youth wages. The DoL report I linked to also gives similar figures.

                     I am defending the proposition that minimum wages should be lowered, especially for youth. I don’t need to argue that minimum wages are the *most* significant cause of unemployment for that. If you disagree with me, you need to argue that minimum wages are insignificant. If you don’t want to defend that proposition, then you must accept mine.

                     What do you consider an acceptable cost for the $13/hour minimum wage? 1 job? 10 jobs? 100 jobs? 1000 jobs? 10,000 jobs? 100,000 jobs? 1,000,000 jobs? I would go with 100 jobs, because, as I have mentioned, I think that there are alternative welfare proposals that could achieve that.

                     So, do you have an explanation for why this crisis targets youth more than the Black Monday crisis?

                     Regarding VSM:

                     Low turnout shows that students are disinterested in their union; it is a sign of poor performance. Moreover, someone elected by 5% of students voting for them can hardly claim to represent students.

                     The advocacy role of student unions is small. Certainly it doesn’t warrant their million-dollar budgets. And, like I said, I don’t think they do a good job of it.

                     If you don’t join the union, you don’t get the benefits. Simple. The only freeloaders are the small minority of students that get the vast majority of benefits.

                     What about my Christchurch-based Otago-student friends? What are they getting for their $180/year? Nothing: no class reps, no services, no benefits, and representation by Logan Edgar (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/08/from_the_ousa_president.html), which is worse than nothing.

                     Answer me: Is that fair?
                   • Thomas …

                     20 August 2011 at 11:17 pm

                     CV:

                     And that wasn’t the case in the early 90s? That was the time of public-sector layoffs. If anything, the phenomenon you are suggesting should have the opposite effect.

                     I’m asking what makes 2011 different from 1991—why does the current labour market discriminate against youth more than it did 20 years ago?

                     Raising wages is an excellent goal. But it isn’t as easy as passing a law demanding that it happens. You need to work hard to achieve that.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     20 August 2011 at 11:19 pm

                     What about my Christchurch-based Otago-student friends? What are they getting for their $180/year? Nothing: no class reps, no services, no benefits, and representation by Logan Edgar (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/08/from_the_ousa_president.html), which is worse than nothing.

                     Answer me: Is that fair?

                     Of course, the answer is to improve the services given to members by the organisation not maim and dismember the organisation.

                     See I told you, you are unimaginative.
                   • Thomas …

                     20 August 2011 at 11:27 pm

                     CV:

                     So do you agree that the current system is unfair. Yes or No? Don’t avoid the question. Either insult my friends or admit that the system is broken.

                     Now that we have established that the current system is failing, let’s see how to address it.

                     We need student unions that care about *all* of their members. Currently they only care about the 10% that make the effort to work the system.

                     So let’s create an incentive for the union to care.

                     The best way to do that is to give every member some real power—the choice of whether or not to join.

                     Since you are so imaginative, why don’t you suggest a better bill?
                   • McFlock …

                     20 August 2011 at 11:41 pm

                     let’s see: 39,000 currently unemployed 15-19yo, – 12,000 jobs = 27,000, or 19%. What a load of shit – to increase at roughly the same rate as the rest of the population 15-19yo unemployment would be around 24%.
                      
                     And this ain’t the 80’s – it is a different society, with different infrastructure, technology, regulations and economy.
                      
                     Now you’re sliding, anyway – you’re comment that started all this was “The question was about responsibility for the problem, not the size of the problem. Goff just said that it happened after Labour left office. The implication being that the effects of Labour’s policies ended the moment they lost the election.” For that, you DO need to demonstrate the relative responsibility of all likely factors, not just the one you have an ideological hard-on for.
                      
                     Now the VSM digression:
                     “Low turnout shows that students are disinterested in their union; it is a sign of poor performance”. Bullshit. Student participation in association services is extremely high – that implies excellent performance. A minority of students caring about constitutional amendments and which gimp gets to be prez simply means that most students don’t give a crap about that aspect of membership, not the entire association.
                     As for your ChCh friends, I believe they are on a reduced levy due to ousa not having offices on other campuses. They do get student representation on council, the board of grad studies, library committees, benefits of negotiations to limit university fee increases, blind marking, and other less obvious services. So why should they pay NOTHING for those benefits? Or should OUSA say it’s cool to raise fees for Chch School of Med students, as long as students at the DSM don’t get fee increases? Would THAT be fair?
                   • Thomas …

                     21 August 2011 at 12:00 am

                     McFlock: For that I only need to demonstrate that Goff didn’t answer the question. That much is clear. If he had said “Minimum wages have little effect on unemployment. Labour accepts no responsibility.”, then he would have answered the question. His answer did not even contain the word responsibility.

                     You haven’t answered my question. Why is 2011 different to 1991? You merely assert that it is indeed different.

                     Re VSM: I asked you a direct question, highlighted in a separate paragraph. You did not answer that question. I’ll assume that you agree that it is unfair and that the system is therefore failing.

                     The best way to protect students from bad unions is to give them the choice vote with their feet and opt-out.

                     Your position denies students a very simple freedom. You need a very good justification for that. Yet you can only make a vague reference to freeloaders to justify it. The current system has lots of freeloaders who are much worse. So that argument doesn’t hold water.

                     No system is perfect. But VSM is much much better.
                   • McFlock …

                     21 August 2011 at 12:20 am

                     English 124 – “message” (the actual words in the message) vs “metamessage” (the higher level information communicated in the message, beyond the simple meaning of the words). Goff could have given a different answer, such as “fuck all, you right wing nutbar”. But I think that was the metamessage of his answer, anyway.
                     You seriously have NO IDEA how the nz economy has changed in the last 20 years, but managed to google Eric Crampton when you needed it? Bullshit.
                      
                     VSM:
                     Your question was based on inaccuracy:”Nothing: no class reps, no services, no benefits, and representation by Logan Edgar”. not sure on the specifics of the class rep system, but I mentioned other benefits they definitely get.
                     “Your position denies students a very simple freedom. You need a very good justification for that. Yet you can only make a vague reference to freeloaders to justify it. The current system has lots of freeloaders who are much worse. So that argument doesn’t hold water.” Oh again, bullshit. WSU, AUSA and the Australian experience all show us that without a democratic decision made by all students, students associations get stuffed simply because they can’t limit the benefits of membership to members only. So radio stations get sold, advocacy offices become company doctors, and the associations become pointless discount-deal husks of their former selves. You aren’t Nelson Mandela fighting apartheid, you’re a self-centred actoid who can’t see reality through his own ego, Mr We-have-exactly-the-same-economy-as-20-years-ago.
                      
                   • Thomas …

                     21 August 2011 at 12:49 am

                     McFlock: Goff ‘s answer did not address the causes of the problem. That was what the question was about, plain and simple.

                     I know enough about the economic history of NZ. You obviously don’t, because you cannot explain why youth are taking a hiding at the moment. I repeat, why is youth unemployment higher now than it was 20 years ago? despite the economy being in worse shape then?

                     In particular, in 1991 ‘right-wing’ economic policy had been followed for the past 7 years. In 2011 we have had less than 3 years of ‘centrist’ economic policy.

                     Sure comparing now to 20 years ago isn’t a perfect comparison. Please find a better one! Or at least explain this one!

                     VSM: My friends are dissatisfied with what they get. Who are you to tell them that they get enough? Why can’t they decide for themselves if the union is value for money?

                     I never got anything from the UCSA. And here is a good example, ENSOC the engineering students union is voluntary. They do a roaring trade and provide much better value for money than the UCSA. That is clear proof that voluntary unions will work better than compulsory ones.

                     VSM is without question better than the status quo.
                   • McFlock …

                     21 August 2011 at 1:34 am

                     I think Goff got the point across. 
                     Youth unemployment is [slightly] higher now because the credit crunch is different to a non-derivative stockmarket crash, the apprenticeship scheme restarted by labour has been buggered by national, the currency of one of our major trading partner is now equivalent to the peso, and fire at will periods ensure that any employment is strictly temporary and the unskilled youth workforce is therefore quite lean.
                     Love your labels: “right wing” vs “centrist” simply to pretend you have a point. This govt is worse than even Richardson.
                      
                     You’re the one looking for comparisons, because you have no fucking evidence to support your religious belief in – um, Brash?
                      
                     VSM
                     Oh, so now your friends DO get benefits of membership, just not “enough”? Well, the fact is that under VSM they won’t have the option of receiving the benefits they do get.
                      
                     And you bring up ENSOC? What the fuck do they provide, other than piss-ups and the occasional riot? Do they have paid advocates? Do they have reps on council? Do they provide support and facilities to a couple of hundred clubs and societies? All they prove is that you can sell alcohol to students – and every pub knows that. But for the times you need something OTHER than a handle of beer, that is what a REAL students’ association (not a drinking club) is for.
                     Not trashing someone else’s campus every august.
                   • Thomas …

                     21 August 2011 at 2:11 am

                     McFlock:

                     This is going nowhere, you are attacking irrelevant details of my argument.

                     * Goff didn’t talk about causes. He didn’t talk about minimum wages. That misses the point of the question as far as I’m concerned.

                     * The differences you list don’t explain why youth in particular are hit harder. I doubt the employment law reform has actually led to many people being fired and it probably led to more people being hired. Do you have statistics to support that claim?

                     * I think Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson were more ‘right-wing’ than Bill English. Do you think seven years of Douglas and Richardson were ‘better’ than 2.5 years of English?

                     * No benefits is not enough benefits last time I checked. But I don’t want to waste time debating exactly how many benefits my friends don’t get. The point is that they are dissatisfied with the OUSA but have no real options. Telling them that they don’t have the right to be dissatisfied is ridiculous.

                     * ENSOC has elected representatives, does advocacy and runs events. They do a better job than the UCSA does. The point is that voluntary unions exist and get by fine. So suggesting that they will disappear is pure scaremongering.

                     We can nitpick these points until the sun comes up, but I don’t think they are addressing the main point of the argument.

                     I think I have exhausted all the insight you have on these issues. As such, I don’t think that I can learn anything more from arguing with you. I think that my arguments have stood up to yours.

                     Thank you for discussing this with me. Good night!
                   • McFlock …

                     21 August 2011 at 2:31 am

                     Damned straight it’s going nowhere – the little evidence you provide is shown to be weak, so you call it an irrelevant detail.
                      

                     *Goff answered the question – just not in simpe enough words for you to understand.
                     *There are many possible caues for youth being hit a bit harder than everyone else, employment wise. You simply jumped on “minimum wage”, and ignored the many other possible causes. Indeed, your “12,000 jobs” figure would mean that 15-19yo unemployment would barely change in one of the biggest economic recessionary periods on record.
                     *When was fire-at-will last in effect in NZ? That’s pretty right wing.
                     *I never said they didn’t have a right to be dissatisfied. *Solving such issues is in the power of those students within the association, using association mechanisms. A dictate from Wellington just removes almost all benefit to everyone, rather than improving the association.
                     *ENSOC might provide some services. Just not as many as, say, ousa. Dire warnings about repercussions of VSM on students is based on fact – the experience of NZ and australia. It is not “scaremongering”. It’s simply the 4th cow in the line connecting the door to the works with the refrigerator trucks leaving the gate.

                     As for your line “I think I have exhausted all the insight you have on these issues”, it sums you up nicely.
                     1) you’re a parasite. 
                     2) you’re more arrogant than even me (I never thought I’d see the day)
                     3) you’re delusional. You haven’t read a fucking word I’ve written. Hell, you haven’t even understood half the words YOU’VE written.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   20 August 2011 at 11:26 pm

                   McFlock: Firstly, don’t fall for the Luddite fallacy.

                   The Luddite Fallacy is now false.

                   Why? Because it forgets that it is unemployment now which damages society, not a mythical regaining of equilibrium by the freemarkets at some future point.

                   Firm example: Foxconn is reported to be planning layoffs of over 1M workers via automation of their factories.

                   Question: when will those million assembly workers be employed again, and doing what?
                   • Thomas …

                     20 August 2011 at 11:32 pm

                     The Luddite Fallacy is now false.

                     Why? Why has it been a fallacy for centuries and suddenly broken down today?

                     You are like the people that predict an impending apocalypse every decade or so.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     20 August 2011 at 11:38 pm

                     There are 45.8M on Food Stamps in the “Richest Most Entrepreneurial Country in the World”. And at the same time the US has over 400 billionaires.

                     Enegy depletion and the overleveraged financialisation of the economy change everything.

                     WAKE THE FUCK UP

                     You are like the people that predict an impending apocalypse every decade or so.

                     I’ve got a prediction for you. GDP growth per capita in the OECD countries will be negative when averaged over the next 20 years.

                     Suck on that mate.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   21 August 2011 at 12:06 am

                   Raising wages is an excellent goal. But it isn’t as easy as passing a law demanding that it happens. You need to work hard to achieve that.

                   It is as easy as passing a law demanding that it happens.

                   A combination of minmum wage laws and progressive taxation has worked in the past, and it will work again.

                   91% top income tax rate mate, just like the US circa 1956-1962.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 20 August 2011 at 11:29 pm

                 Suspicions of the “Luddite Fallacy”

                 http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2011/03/07/jobless-recovery-the-luddite-fallacy-and-the-4-hour-workweek/

                 And it is not necessary for the Luddite fallacy to fail entirely to have problems. Imagine that as we innovate, maybe through better machine learning and robotics, we keep losing 2% of all jobs every year. For every 100 jobs destroyed, only 98 new jobs are created. Within a few short years, we would be left with a sizeable fraction of the population which has left the job market entirely, and another fraction which is either unemployed or underemployed.
                 • Thomas …

                   20 August 2011 at 11:35 pm

                   Technological progress has been happening since the wheel was invented. Yet the narrative of history does not show a steady increase in unemployment.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     20 August 2011 at 11:43 pm

                     You better check out the U6 stats in the US. Or better still, ShadowStats

                     http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

                     NB in the old days there were many real jobs available, not just jobs working for capitalists, helping to make the capitalists richer.

                     You know, jobs with emotional labour, caring for others, building depth to communities; all that neat stuff which doesnt actually create financial “ROI” but which makes the world a more livable place.
                   • McFlock …

                     20 August 2011 at 11:55 pm

                     The “narrative of history”? What was the unemployment rate in Rome, 400AD?
                   • Thomas …

                     21 August 2011 at 1:13 am

                     McFlock: Even if unemployment in Rome was 0%, the amount of technological advancement since then would leave us with massive unemployment today according to the Luddite fallacy.

                     CV: The graph you linked to only goes back to 1995, but technological progress should be measured since at least the industrial revolution. Unemployment goes up and down, but there is no underlying upward trend corresponding to the Luddite fallacy.

                     Wage and price controls have been tried in many countries and they failed miserably. Muldoon tried it in the early 80s; the electorate saw the failure and elected Lange-Douglas. The inescapable fact is that you cannot increase real wealth without increasing productivity.
                   • McFlock …

                     21 August 2011 at 1:40 am

                     “McFlock: Even if unemployment in Rome was 0%, the amount of technological advancement since then would leave us with massive unemployment today according to the Luddite fallacy.”
                     Only if you assume a particularly simplistic nature of the relationship between technology, production capacity, participation in the workforce and demand. Again, you’re making bold statements with no knowledge and no evidence, powered only by the warming glow of your own ego.
                   • Thomas …

                     21 August 2011 at 1:51 am

                     McFlock: I’m merely pointing out that the Luddite fallacy has never borne truth in the past. You and CV haven’t explained why *this time* the apocalypse is really coming, when this prediction sounds as empty as all the previous ones.
                   • McFlock …

                     21 August 2011 at 1:57 am

                     No – you pontificated about the narrative of history and called me a luddite because I dared suggest that technology can change the nature of the employment market.
                       
                     Great evidenced-based debating, there.
                   • Thomas …

                     21 August 2011 at 2:16 am

                     You dared suggest it. I pointed out that the same suggestion has been made many times before and has never come to fruition.
                   • McFlock …

                     21 August 2011 at 2:36 am

                     Technology has no effect on the marketplace? Fine – I’ll just go back to rough-hewing, and you can shape the ends. And then let us burn some brimstone to delouse a dewlling and make dye out of rotting shellfish.
       • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.3

         18 August 2011 at 11:08 pm

         Economic policy doesn’t work overnight. It takes years to have full effect.

         Funny thing, National’s policies managed to drive more wealth into their rich mate’s pockets within months.

         Now how did they manage that if what you said is true?

         Or is it the case that the Rich get Money Rained Upon Them, while the Poor Must Wait Thirstily for Drops of Trickle Down?

         Wow you must be proud of yourself for wanting to create a slave work force of youth in this country.

         Face it. The private sector has been gutless failures at producing employment for our young people. What was the value of the NZ Rich List? $45B or so? Why if I do my math correctly, just $0.4B would put all 16 and 17 year old unemployed into full time work.

         But nah can’t be fucked, those $45B in capital are better employed doing whatever else, collecting holiday sun in Honolulu maybe.
         • Thomas 9.1.1.3.1

           18 August 2011 at 11:27 pm

           CV: I don’t want to engage with you again. You keep (i) changing the subject, (ii) spouting empty rhetoric, and (iii) making baseless assertions. Overall, (iv) you just miss the point of a reasoned debate and (v) go for emotional soundbites instead.

           Case-in-point, in this single post you’re
           (i) changing the subject to tax cuts,
           (ii) describing the private sector as “gutless”,
           (iii) claiming that $0.4 billion could ‘create’ full-time jobs for all unemployed 16- and 17-year-olds,
           (iv) implying that, because the direct effect of tax cuts is immediate, all policy effects are immediate, and
           (v) continually using terms like “rich mate”, “thirsty poor”, “slave workforce”, “rich list”, etc..
           • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.3.1.1

             18 August 2011 at 11:45 pm

             Diddums mate

             Just be aware that your narrow framing of the world =! the world

             So how many times do you brush your teeth a day? If two is good, 25 times must be better, right?

             Word to the wise: the economy is an irrational human driven ecological subset of the global ecosystem*. Until you treat it as such you won’t understand shit about how it works or why it works.

             *Neoclassical economics has no concept of this either, which is why it has been a 40 year experiment in failure. Even their development of DGSE models in the last 10 years has been pitifully inadequate.
   • Colonial Viper 9.2

     18 August 2011 at 10:56 pm

     Goff just said that it happened after Labour left office. The implication being that the effects of Labour’s policies ended the moment they lost the election.

     Correct. The effects of Labour’s policies did not end when they lost the election.

     Their ability to enact new Government policy in response to the emerging crisis did.
10. HC 10

    18 August 2011 at 11:25 pm

    I think this Boscawen, Roger Geriatric Douglas, Heather (leaving) Roy, new coup d’Brash and who else may still belong to this bizarre group of largely Aged Candidate Troop (ACT), they will soon see their final days and go down with the Titanic they thought they were manning.

    I have just looked at some information that the “conservative” Colin Craig, who was number 3 in the Auckland mayoral elections, is putting out now for feedback.

    It appears that he is anticipating and may succeed in doing out of business both Winston Peters and Don Brash and consorts.

    If that is anything to go by, the Epsom electorate, where he is likely to stand himself, may well be split and hard to win. There will be Banksy, there will likely be Colin Craig, and who else may run. The election is far from decided. The conservative and neo con right is getting split more than expected, and this is a real chance for Labour to pick up, the Greens to deliver between 6 and 10 per cent, and who knows, there may be another surprise yet.

    This coming election will be most interesting, I feel.
    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      19 August 2011 at 3:48 pm

      David Parker, a former law firm partner, is going to get some solid support in Epsom too. That electorate is a real slice’m dice’m knife fight.
11. Colonial Viper 11

    20 August 2011 at 11:47 pm

    I’m really tired of these Right Wingers who think that fighting for the rights of the top 1% is an honoured role in life.

    I’m going to have a few quiet words to peeps who will fuck that plan up. Time for a reverse-Ruthanasia.
12. HC 12

    21 August 2011 at 12:25 am

    Sorry to note, but reading some bizarre posts with many familiar, disproved arguments in favour of neo liberal capitalist policies, it appears this thread has been ACT (angry ‘Aged Candidate Troopers’) infested.

    I better start my antivirus scan now, since the bug appears to finally have gone to bed and hopefully can be put into quarantine and then deleted. He or it appeared to be planning to go to bed a fair while ago, but persisted with a nasty attack.

    Good riddance!

    Would they allow any leftist to raise her/his arguments on a right wing blog???
    • Thomas 12.1

      21 August 2011 at 12:54 am

      HC: Most forums are open to anyone who is not going to resort to name-calling (“Aged Candidate Troopers”, “he or it”), baseless assertions (“disproved arguments”), empty rhetoric (“neo liberal capitalist policies”), and irrelevant nonsense (antivirus scan).

      Leftist arguments? Mythical creatures…
      • Axle 12.1.1

        21 August 2011 at 1:26 am

        Well actually, Tom Arse, the left doesn’t need to argue
        We hold these truths to be self evident
        Find yourself darling
      • HC 12.1.2

        21 August 2011 at 2:00 pm

        Well, that did not work so well, it seems. So I am just going to start another anti-virus scan right now. Something keeps popping up that is distracting from what really matters. The truth that is! I am sure we will get it cleaned up soon.
      • Colonial Viper 12.1.3

        21 August 2011 at 2:32 pm

        Thomas can’t deal with the fact that energy depletion is going to destroy any potential for net economic growth over the next 20 years.

        Come to think of it, the neoliberal Chicago school ideology he buys into can’t deal with it either.

        As long as prices are high enough, oil will always be found, mined and supplied to the world – that’s what his free market price/supply curves tell him.

        Daft.
    • lprent 12.2

      21 August 2011 at 7:34 am

      The post is about a leader of Act – in this case the neophyte in the house rather than the geriatric outside the house or the experienced but disgraced on inside the house. We get this rather predictable waffling and attempt to control the debate whenever there is a post about Acts many leaders. It usually seems to come from the formulaic and rigid minds of a boy indoctrinated by Act on campus (are there any women left in Act?)

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS