Brendon Bonner supports Living Wage

17 comments on “Brendon Bonner supports Living Wage ”

• Comments are now closed

1. rsbandit 1

   22 September 2016 at 8:49 pm

   Why stop at the liveable wage, Brendon? Shouldn’t all wages be more or less equal?
   • Policy Parrot 1.1

     23 September 2016 at 8:57 am

     Strawman argument – where does Mr. Bonner say that he advocates “for equal pay across the organisation”. He doesn’t.

     The argument essentially is a common situation, where the production staff are paid low-wages/minimum wage, and the CEO is paid 300-400x times this rate, and yet the company claims “there is simply no more money to pay staff more”.

     Surely anyone could see that is a joke? Even reducing the CEO’s payrate to say 50x the worker’s pay – say 1.75 million opposed to the worker’s 35k – would free up 250 x $35k to be spread over the production team.

     I mean this is essentially what has happened in reverse since the 1980s… So really its only turning the clock back to that rather than ushering some grand new era of communist totalitarianism.
     • infused 1.1.1

       23 September 2016 at 12:51 pm

       isolated case with a big company and expensive ceos.

       The problem is, you half a ceos pay and they walk. You likely think thats fine. Good ceos are pretty rare.
2. Brendon Bonner 2

   22 September 2016 at 10:10 pm

   That is something the workers/people/community can decide for themselves.

   The Mondragon Corporation is a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. At the end of 2014 it employed 74,117 people in 257 companies. The general manager of an average Mondragon cooperative earns no more than 5 times as much as the theoretical minimum wage paid in his/her cooperative.

   I suppose compared to ‘normal’ corporations where manager incomes can be 400 times greater than worker wages then I suppose the wage structure at Mondragon looks “more or less equal?”
3. Benby 3

   23 September 2016 at 8:23 am

   OTOH he engages in cheap point scoring, in the process looking hypocritical, and driving in dangerous and illegal ways.

   http://www.islandbaycycleway.org.nz/blog/a-pictures-worth-a-thousand-words-part-ii
   at the bottom

   The one doesn’t make up for the other.

   In an ideal world of course we’d have candidates with integrity…
   • Riding Solo 3.1

     23 September 2016 at 2:27 pm

     C’mon Benby, OTOH you’re taking the tentative word of Regan Dooley as gospel without any proof whatsoever, and whose whole life centres on his love for all things cycling – He calls himself the Island Bay Cycleway FFS..

     Cheap scoring? Look in the mirror, take a selfie and address your own integrity issues! 🙂
     • Benby 3.1.1

       23 September 2016 at 9:59 pm

       Have read lots written by Regan and it makes sense. Have seen one item by Brendan and it shows him committing a dangerous illegal act. Have we really got no better candidates?
   • Nifo 3.2

     23 September 2016 at 6:55 pm

     OTOH you would take a good read of Brendons policies and just move on – I really dont know how you could possibly question the integrity of the guy, he is a passionate advocate for the people of the Southern Ward and will be a valuable boost of energy when he gets in.

     Let me ask you this: Where has your poster boy Mr Lee been for the last 3 years ? What specifically has he done for the local community ?

     It is not all about bikes mate.
     • Benby 3.2.1

       23 September 2016 at 10:03 pm

       It may not all be about bikes but I’ve seen one item by Brendan and it shows him committing a dangerous illegal act. Have we really got no better candidates?
4. Chris 4

   23 September 2016 at 2:28 pm

   Benby, did you also hypothesise what happened to Kennedy and whether there really was a second shooter on the grassy knoll?

   Your argument about whether Brendon Bonner was or wasn’t using a hand held device is a diversionary statement that detracts from the message that the vast majority (and it is a majority whether you choose to believe it or not) of Island Bay residents are saying.

   This being that the Island Bay cycleway is poorly constructed, wasn’t necessary along the Parade and was poorly consulted upon.

   The One News picture of 6 cyclists clearly appears to be stock photos from a period of days rather than on the day.

   6 cyclists using a cycleway that has cost the best part of 2 million dollars to ratepayers would not pass any cost benefit analysis.

   Being a resident of Island Bay I can assure you far more cyclists pass my door on the Esplanade at any given time than would utilise the Parade.

   Being a walker I can assure you the cycleway is not meeting its intended purpose of creating a greener corridor in to the city, It is a cycleway to no where with it terminating in an area that has absolutely no possibility of fulfilling the intended goal of running directly in to the city.

   What really frustrates me about your post Benby is your absolute lack of knowledge or total disregard to the statements Brendon Bonner makes about cycleways.

   He totally supports them, and if you bothered to look at the construct of his argument you would realise that he does support cycleways on the whole.

   What he and other residents of Island Bay opposed was the lack of consultation with the community by the city council, this includes David Lee who voted in favour of it.

   David Lee will get the communities feelings about his commitment to the ward through the ballot box, I suspect his tenure will be a 1 term one and he will be replaced by Brendon Bonner.

   The best way to interact with a community is to listen to them, take on board their comments and feelings and reflect this at the various meetings and then to provide feedback on the decision making process.

   David Lee has been found wanting on all parts and no grandstanding or character attacking from Benby towards Brendon Bonner will detract from the failures of a councillor to connect with his electorate.
   • The New Student 4.1

     23 September 2016 at 3:18 pm

     Maybe I should have stayed out at my place on The Parade for a bit longer and made it 7 bikes. Sounds like I was the only resident who didn’t use a motor vehicle. Still don’t.
   • Matthew Whitehead 4.2

     23 September 2016 at 7:38 pm

     The cycleway isn’t poorly constructed, (that would imply it’s going to fall apart or something, which it isn’t) it was poorly designed.

     I’m still astounded every time I go to Island Bay (it’s a neighbouring suburb to mine, so not that often) that the cycleway wasn’t restricted to one side of the road, and the on-street parking made perpendicular to the footpath on the other to compensate slightly for the loss in parking.

     That would remove the safety issue of car doors opening onto the cycleway, allow cyclists to pass each other if all cycle traffic is going in one direction, and give more room between cyclists and motorists if cyclists aren’t passing each other. There would still be losers, (in this case, the people who rely on on-street parking at its current density would lose out, but Island Bay has ridiculous amounts of on-street parking as-is so that seems a fair loser to pick) but at least we’d have a safe cycleway.

     I won’t take sides on the various broadsides between what appears to be the Lee and Bonner camps, as I actually voted them both in as 1 and 2, although I expect it’s unlikely that my opinions on that matter would be shared by enough people to unseat Paul Eagle. As someone who’s not resident in Island Bay and generally supports cycleways even if I expect we’ll need to redo the Island Bay one eventually, it’s not exactly an issue that sways my vote.
   • Benby 4.3

     23 September 2016 at 10:01 pm

     Uhm no assumptions please. For one I’ve never used the IBCW cos I simply don’t get around to it. Lee, I don’t know him well.

     I’ve seen one item by Brendan and it shows him committing a dangerous illegal act. Have we really got no better candidates?
   • Benby 4.4

     23 September 2016 at 10:02 pm

     Also read this before commenting, else accept to be looked down upon. http://cyclingfallacies.com/en/
5. Peter 5

   23 September 2016 at 5:55 pm

   The ‘living wage’ is calculated on what it costs a person to purchase a number of goods and services right now
   The wage of those below this level is then increased to (at least) that level.
   So the cost of producing those goods and services has to go up to cover the increase in labour costs.
   So the ‘living wage’ now has to be recalculated to a higher level because of the increase in those costs.
   So the wage of those below this level is increased to (at least) that level.

   . . . and so on, an endless circle.
   • Matthew Whitehead 5.1

     23 September 2016 at 7:48 pm

     I just made this point to refute a ridiculous meme about the price of milk vs the US federal minimum wage on Facebook this morning, but it applies equally to your rather ill-informed argument about how raising the minimum wage to a living wage would work.

     The below was a response to a stupid meme that claimed that raising the minimum wage from $1 to $18 dollars would raise the price of milk from $1 a gallon to $15, (which after tax you would then not be able to afford) but it works just as well for arguments about raising our $15.25 minimum to a living wage closer to $20 hourly.

     The average dairy farm in New Zealand has 400 or so dairy cows, and I’ll assume the US is similar. The actual milking takes 5 minutes or so per cow using modern equipment, and you need to get the cows in and out of the milking shed as well, so let’s add a fixed time of 2 hours to that. It’s irrelevant how many actual farmhands you have because what you’re paying is actual workhours, so we’ll assume the boss hires the most efficient amount and pays them the minimum wage. Most cows produce 8 gallons of milk a day. So a farm producers 3200 gallons of milk over 43 and a third workhours, which means you should divide any raise to the minimum wage’s effect on the production of milk by 73.8 or so, (the number of gallons produced averaged over the number of expected workhours for milking) and then add say, one sixth of the increase for the wages of the retail worker.

     Some transport workers also make minimum wage, so if we factor that in, milk is typically moved in 4,000-5,000 gallon tankers, and may have a 7,000-8,000 gallon trailer. Let’s average out between having a trailer and not and the variances. That’s about 6,000 gallons on your average trip. The average distance comestibles are shipped is 1,500 miles. Let’s assume at a worst case that 75% of this is done by minimum-wage workers in truck haulage, and that they average a speed of 50 miles per hour. Our hypothetical minimum wage haulers are delivering over 266 gallons of milk per workhour, so their impact is even less than the dairy production.

     The current US federal minimum wage is $7.25. Let’s assume you raise that to $12. That’s a $4.75 hourly raise. If your milk is produced in the US at the current federal minimum, (it’s entirely possible a state minimum already bumps up farmhand and haulage wages so the differential will be smaller, but let’s be generous to people worried about the minimum wage and assume everyone involved is on the current federal minimum) the projected increase in the production cost of milk is about 87c given my assumptions. (most of that cost is from assuming that you’re paying for 10min of the retail worker’s time) At retail that will be marked up, so let’s call that $1.50. Let’s assume for every hour you work, you have two such purchases you need that will be similarly increased by the minimum wage. You’re still $1.75 better off at the minimum wage. That’s $43.75 net extra a week if you’re part-time, and $70 if you’re full-time.

     Also, the increased purchasing power people on low incomes enjoy are likely to raise retail incomes in general, (that is, minimum wage workers will buy more milk) stimulating the entire economy, meaning capitalists earn more, and can afford to raise wages other than the minimum wage. Basically we all win, at least if we assume your boss is likely to share the increased profits. If they’re not, well, that’s when you need say, a union.

     So yes, there is some “minimum wage inflation,” assuming people consume a lot of products or buy a lot of services offered locally by people paid the minimum wage or close enough to it that their wage would be adjusted by an increase in the minimum. But inevitably that inflation isn’t as big as the increase in incomes for everyone involved, because you produce a lot of stuff in the time it takes to earn that extra money, and the fact that people can buy a lot more stuff generally is good for the economy, assuming you can sustainably produce enough stuff. (which theoretically we can, we’re just not so good on the “sustainably” part yet)
6. Richard McGrath 6

   23 September 2016 at 10:21 pm

   Why stop at $20? If ‘priming the pump’ was the road to economic prosperity, shouldn’t proponents of the minimum wage be pushing for $100 an hour – or, better, $500 an hour?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS