It’s the market, baby

319 comments on “It’s the market, baby ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Paula 1

   9 January 2013 at 8:11 am

   James, have you considered becoming a vegetarian ?

   It would do wonders to your expanding girth due to a sedentary lifestyle brought on by the demands of contemporary information technology.

   All the best,

   Paula.
   • xtasy 1.1

     9 January 2013 at 10:37 pm

     Paula,

     Well appreciated, but you are not that “Paula” at the top of WiNZ by any chance, are you?

     Yes, I doubt it, as she does not really look that vegetarian to me.
2. tc 2

   9 January 2013 at 8:15 am

   You’ve chosen a commodity that’s dominated by the 2 supermarket chains, there’s plenty of others like milk, bread etc so you don’t set the price they do.

   My old style local butcher walked away years ago due to these 2 org’s (and the mad butcher) making it virtually impossible to compete at that end.

   He’s replaced by an organic, upmarket butcher. You go niche or you go out of business in our islands of less than 5mill with an engineered growing gap between the have’s and have nots.

   Is it any wonder with the commcomm effectively endorsing monopoly creation and if they do strike a blow for the consumer they get reeled in like Shonkey’s threatened over broadband as shareholder value and profits are the only real goal not a good deal for the punter or industry competitiveness.
   • Oscar 2.1

     9 January 2013 at 6:45 pm

     The Commerce Act is nearly 30 years old and is very limited in aspects. ComCom can only do so much with the legislation they’re given… which isn’t much. Perhaps when/if the Consumer Law Reform Bill gets passed, maybe there will be a reason for the ComCom

     A country is only as effective as its people. Our people are starving and unable to feed themselves or their families. Our communities are failing and the neo liberal policies that have been followed since the days of Thatcher and Reagan are ruining the fabric of the social structure. If a workforce cannot feed itself or its family, what hope remains for a business that they will be staffed by efficient and productive workers who are worrying about whether their children have enough to eat.
3. Joe Bloggs 3

   9 January 2013 at 8:17 am

   The Mad Butcher has chicken legs, thighs and wings for $5.95 a kilo this week, and whole split chickens (plain or marinated) for only $10.

   It’s a matter of shopping around and not being prepared to accept the first deal on offer. Also of picking your recipes to suit your budget.
   • tc 3.1

     9 January 2013 at 8:29 am

     Yes good point also as MB tends to set the mark with his buying power now and cheaper cuts do take longer to cook but they carry more flavour and value like shin, oxtail.
   • KJT 3.2

     9 January 2013 at 8:48 pm

     Full of fat and bad for your health is cheap. Of course!
     • David H 3.2.1

       9 January 2013 at 10:54 pm

       I have a pic somewhere of the grease that was left after cooking chicken thighs was to say the least disgusting, they were left swimming in about 1 1/2 inches of grease, and when i rang up and complained they sent me a voucher for more chicken. Ugg.
4. Gosman 4

   9 January 2013 at 8:23 am

   I couldn’t follow the reasoning behind this post. Is this some sort of Socialist lament or is it meant to be satirical? I’m leaning towards the satirical at the moment as it is much funnier when read that way.
   • tc 4.1

     9 January 2013 at 8:26 am

     Yes like Downton Abbey’s a comedy without the laugh track.
     • Populuxe1 4.1.1

       9 January 2013 at 5:59 pm

       It is, sort of. A sort of social freakshow under glass with Maggie Smith to give snappy punchlines.
5. Gosman 5

   9 January 2013 at 8:34 am

   What the employers are calling for in the links you provide would be no different in principle to a consumer group asking for the removal of restrictions on trade to allow increased supply of goods/services.

   In the example you use and if you were based in somewhere like Japan, instead of going around various individual suppliers you would have better luck forming a pressure group to get the Government to remove restictions on imports of beef from places like NZ. This would increase both supply and likely quality of meat.
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     9 January 2013 at 8:42 am

     would be no different in principle to a consumer group asking for the removal of restrictions on trade to allow increased supply of goods/services.

     Yes, because the unemployed are just another resource or commodity, and 170,000 unemployed isn’t enough “supply” of bodies

     Why doesn’t someone take away the restrictions stopping $25/hr-$30/hr jobs appearing in the NZ economy.
     • Gosman 5.1.1

       9 January 2013 at 8:51 am

       What restrictions are there stopping $25/hr-$30/hr jobs appearing in the NZ economy?
       • Lightly 5.1.1.1

         9 January 2013 at 9:31 am

         weak labour rights, no industry strategy, high foreign ownership of our companies
         • Saccharomyces 5.1.1.1.1

           9 January 2013 at 9:42 am

           I’ve got a $30/hr job, in a foreign owned company…. there weren’t any restrictions for me. Oh, well, except hard work climbing from the bottom.
           • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1.1.1

             9 January 2013 at 9:51 am

             Oh good on ya chum. Ignore the help the rest of society, your family and community gave you, you’re a real self made git.
             • Saccharomyces …

               9 January 2013 at 10:03 am

               Mate, I’m not skiting, I just don’t understand. I got a job at minimum wage (back in the day of youth rates too) starting off sweeping floors and stacking shelves for $5.30 an hour.

               I did my job competently, got paid a bit more, got a bit more responsibility, learned from my mistakes, kept working (even weekends an unpaid OT). Did well, got paid a bit more, got a bit more responsiibility, etc. Changed jobs a couple of times when opportunities arose etc.

               I just don’t understand how you can say there are restrictions. How did the rest of society give me anything different to anyone else?
               • mickysavage …

                 9 January 2013 at 10:47 am

                 You do not understand the changes that have been made continuously to wages and conditions which mean that your personal experience is less and less likely to happen.

                 Sure you might be OK but what about everyone else?
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   9 January 2013 at 10:52 am

                   Seems from that minimum wage level, Saccho started in the mid 1980’s, and certainly before the Ruthanasia years. And has learnt remarkably little since then, apart from being a smug self made git in his 40’s. Who doesn’t understand how miserable and insecure it is at the bottom of the ladder today.

                   BK restaurant shift manager in charge of 6 staff, security, money, health and safety, management reporting for $14.50. What a fucking joke.
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 11:57 am

                     Actually CV, I started in the mid ’90s. Sorry, I may have gotten the rate slightly incorrect, I think it was actually $5.65? Note quite sure.

                     I’ve learnt plenty since I started. Including that it’s a bad idea to take a 13.5 hour shift on New Year’s day!

                     Perhaps I don’t realise how miserable and insecure it is at the bottom of the ladder today, but I fail to see how people can’t better themselves.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 January 2013 at 2:23 pm

                     Perhaps I don’t realise how miserable and insecure it is at the bottom of the ladder today, but I fail to see how people can’t better themselves.

                     And while we’re at it let’s make it that much more challenging by cutting student loans, access to university courses, reducing polytech enrolments, ditching night classes and ensuring that the minimum wage and benefits don’t keep up with the true cost of living.

                     Its FUN watching rats struggle and drown in the pool!!!
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 2:35 pm

                     I never had a student loan, didn’t go to university, didn’t go to polytech. The only night class I’ve done was a te reo Maori course, which wsa for my own personal eduction and had nothing to do with work.

                     I’m still not seeing how the things you’ve just stated are, and I quote “restrictions stopping $25/hr-$30/hr jobs appearing in the NZ economy”
                   • David H …

                     9 January 2013 at 11:02 pm

                     Yeah I went there for a managers job when the corporate stores of The chain I was working for were sold, and I did not want to work/live in Ak (would rather slit my wrists (sorry Lyn)). And they seemed proud of the fact they offered at that time $13.50 for all that stress, the one thing I could not work out, is why they looked shocked when I laughed in their faces when they told me the rate. At that time I was paying my 15 year old staff that much. I am one who adhere’s to the saying If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

                     You all want fries with that?
                   • lprent []

                     9 January 2013 at 11:16 pm

                     I did not want to work/live in Ak (would rather slit my wrists (sorry Lyn))

                     Thats ok. I usually feel like that about the place as well. However this is the NZ centre for writing exported non-corporate software and that is what I want to do. The alternative would have been Sydney or Melbourne.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 January 2013 at 11:27 pm

                     I’m still not seeing how the things you’ve just stated are, and I quote “restrictions stopping $25/hr-$30/hr jobs appearing in the NZ economy”

                     I have no need to convince you. Go believe in your own randian fairy tales. Meanwhile, notice how the number of $50K – $80K pa jobs in this deadbeat economy keeps shrinking and shrinking.
                 • Saccharomyces …

                   9 January 2013 at 11:19 am

                   Thanks Micky, so what makes my personal experience less likely to happen?
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 3:11 pm

                     Perhaps it’s “the changes that have been made continuously to wages and conditions”?
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 3:17 pm

                     OTH, what changes? I know people in my industry who are doing exactly the same as I did right now.
         • Gosman 5.1.1.1.2

           9 January 2013 at 9:43 am

           Strong labour rights are no guarrantee of more jobs and can in fact lead to increased unemployment. You just need to look at the Southern European countries to see this.

           There is an industry strategy. You might like a different, more interventionist one, but it is not true to state that one doesn’t exist.

           High foreign ownership of companies does not lead to lower paid jobs. I currently work for one and get far higher rates than I received at a comparable NZ owned company. The highest paid workers in the UK tend to work for foreign owned companies as well.
           • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1.2.1

             9 January 2013 at 9:59 am

             If you work in a foreign owned company which is pumping wealth out of your nation, yes of course they can afford to pay you a bit more. In NZ this includes the Autralian banks, large telcos, importers of high value items, foreign luxury brands, energy companies.

             Strong labour rights are no guarrantee of more jobs and can in fact lead to increased unemployment. You just need to look at the Southern European countries to see this.

             Strong labour rights are a crucial starting point. Beyond that you need several more ingredients, like investment capital for local small business, and government shielding of nascent start up industries from foreign mega-corporations.

             On the other hand, weak labour rights are a guaranteed road to minimum wage serfdom. The Foxconn building surrounded by suicide nets.

             BTW countries with low unemployment (5% or less) always have strong labour rights.
             • Gosman …

               9 January 2013 at 10:29 am

               Sounds like the path North Korea is following.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 9 January 2013 at 10:54 am

                 Yeah because they don’t do prison labour and indentured work camps in the strong labour rights country of North Korea.

                 Gossie you are a smart guy and you already knew this, so I don’t know why you chose to make that North Korea comment.
               • fenderviper …

                 9 January 2013 at 2:47 pm

                 OMG Gosman must be back at “work” and now we have to hear about N Korea every second sentence, you havn’t mentioned Zimbabwe yet, don’t forget Zimbabwe!
                 And don’t forget voodoo economics, the type Nact practise!
           • mike e vipe e 5.1.1.1.2.2

             9 January 2013 at 1:01 pm

             not according to treasury nor other economists lower wages lead to less employment less money in the economy less tax revenue etc!
             your model is what the corporate use to con us out of our assets and lifestyle goose!
     • Saccharomyces 5.1.2

       9 January 2013 at 9:40 am

       What are you on about? What restrictions?
   • Colonial Viper 5.2

     9 January 2013 at 8:44 am

     if you were based in somewhere like Japan, instead of going around various individual suppliers you would have better luck forming a pressure group to get the Government to remove restictions on imports of beef from places like NZ.

     I think that very few Japanese citizens would do such a thing – they are far too aware of the importance of supporting their own industries against foreign interference.
     • Gosman 5.2.1

       9 January 2013 at 8:54 am

       That is there prerogative. However they would then appear churlish if they bemoaned the lack of supply and high cost of the products that they have placed trade restrictions on.
       • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.1

         9 January 2013 at 10:58 am

         At least they maintain a sense of national pride, and pride in their own industries. Kiwis, we don’t give a shit.
         • jingyang 5.2.1.1.1

           9 January 2013 at 3:02 pm

           I see your point, but it is rather broad. The effect of 28 years of constant New Right propaganda that encourages people to only consider price when buying a product cannot be underestimated.
           BTW, 28 years – there is now a whole generation that thinks the current f–ked up situation is ‘normal’ – that’s pretty darn scary.
         • Andy-Roo 5.2.1.1.2

           9 January 2013 at 5:10 pm

           Hi CV,

           There are some exceptions – I work for a large manufacturer in CHCH which is wholly owned by a charitable trust.

           The founder of the company set it up that way so that it would stay a locally owned, locally run company that benefited the community here in Canterbury.

           Not many people have that breadth of vision though.
           • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.1.2.1

             9 January 2013 at 6:43 pm

             Andy-Roo that is a real nice and I wish NZ had hundreds more organisations like yours. Do you know much about the details of the set up and what changes have been required to help it stay on track for so long? Its knowledge we’re going to need to use and spread far and wide across NZ in the future.
             • Andy-Roo …

               10 January 2013 at 3:21 pm

               The trust set up was modelled on the one established for Bosch in Germany.

               The trust board administers the trust that owns over 90% of the company. They distribute the revenue to the various beneficiaries of the trust, in line with the objectives of the trust, which are:

               1. Benefit employees
               2. Foster the growth and development of the electronics industry in Canterbury
               3. Support educational institutions in the region

               There is a separate company board of directors which runs the company, but controls none of the assets.

               The deed of trust has been written in such a way as to make it virtually impossible for any of the companies core assets to be sold into public ownership, or flogged off overseas.

               The founder of the company started planning this structure in the Mid 90’s , and had it well set up before he passed away in 2007.

               I guess my point in writing this is to say that it is possible for companies to be successful, without abusing their employees, and for that success to be shared with employees. I think that message needs to be reinforced as a counter to the current race to the bottom we all seem to be being asked to buy in to.
               • Andy-Roo …

                 10 January 2013 at 3:35 pm

                 Quote from Angus Tait in the mid 80’s (one of the many times people tried to buy him out)

                 “What would I do with 50 million dollars?”
   • mike e vipe e 5.3

     9 January 2013 at 6:10 pm

     Gos the major trading blocks will never allow free trade of the food supply as they never want to rely on some other country to supply food as it would undermine their ability to fight a war!
     ie the same with production line facilities(the ability to manufacture mass produced weapons).
     ie France subsidizing its last steel furnaces!
6. Blue 6

   9 January 2013 at 8:57 am

   I found those articles amusing – some morons in Christchurch don’t appear to be aware that Christchurch is a recovering disaster zone.

   A lot of people have fled, and many people who would consider moving there under normal circumstances might hesitate, because, y’know, track record of massive earthquakes and all.

   People who think they can make a packet out of the rebuild will go, but if you’re in the market for a minimum-wage job?

   These people appear to be surprised that after a major natural disaster they’re having trouble recruiting. And of course, they use it as an opportunity to stereotype all Kiwi workers as lazy bludgers and call for more cheap immigrants to be brought in.
   • James 6.1

     9 January 2013 at 9:13 am

     They are not making the stereotype all Kiwi workers as lazy bludgers at all.

     Now people who have no job and would rather take the dole than take a min wage job – they are bludgers.

     If there are jobs – then people who are unemployed should be taking them.

     Simple really.

     Just because its a min wage job – dosnt mean that they have to stay there forever – but paid employment is better than no employment.
     • Colonial Viper 6.1.1

       9 January 2013 at 9:25 am

       It’s demeaning that we have created an economy which doesnt use peoples talents and qualifications, and expects everyone to be paid like school leavers.

       $14.50/hr to be shift manager at a Burger King, what a fucking horrendous joke. That needs to be a minimum $18/hr position starting rising up to $22/hr after a couple of years.
       • Gosman 6.1.1.1

         9 January 2013 at 10:16 am

         Buy a BK franchise then and pay the workers what you think they should be paid. You could ask your benefactors for the capital if you like. I am frankly sick and tired of lefties jumping up and down about what people should be paid when the power is in their hands to change it.
         • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.1

           9 January 2013 at 10:39 am

           Fuck that Gossie, if I did that I’d fix the problem in one franchise (btw I didn’t think that they are a franchise set up…)

           But what about the workers in the other 60 branches? I guess I should help get Unite in there.

           when the power is in their hands to change it.

           So don’t bitch when we set about it though ok, with organised labour, minimum wage increases and the like?
           • GregJ 6.1.1.1.1.1

             9 January 2013 at 8:01 pm

             You are right CV – Burger King outlets in New Zealand are not sub-franchised to individual franchisees – Antares Restaurant Group Ltd owns the franchise for NZ and operates all the “restaurants”- Antares is owned by Blackstone Group which acquired it in late 2011.
         • mickysavage 6.1.1.1.2

           9 January 2013 at 10:49 am

           That is the problem Gossie. The system is now structured that the only way jobs are viable are if they are on minimum wage. It is a crazy way to do things and apart from ensure the wealthiest stay that way will mean that the rest live on the breadline.
           • Gosman 6.1.1.1.2.1

             9 January 2013 at 10:53 am

             It is not structured that way. Certainly people take advantage of the system to amass great wealth. However there is nothing, (emphasis on nothing), stopping people getting together and forming a business where the accumulation of wealth is spread more evenly. I understand you are a lawyer by trade. If so then there is nothing stopping you collecting less in the way of an income and paying support staff more. Do you do that? If so, more power to you.
             • Colonial Viper …

               9 January 2013 at 10:59 am

               agree Gossie. A $250M start up fund would kick start the co-operative and mutual enterprise movement very nicely.
               • Gosman …

                 9 January 2013 at 11:47 am

                 Or you could get off your backside and get some of your lefty friends together and raise the capital yourself without forcing other people to give it to you. How’s that for an option?
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   9 January 2013 at 11:48 am

                   Not as good as being given the capital (and full accountability for it) to start with.
                   • felixviper …

                     9 January 2013 at 8:56 pm

                     Only the rich are allowed to start out with guaranteed access to capital and that’s just how Gozzy likes it.
                 • KJT …

                   9 January 2013 at 8:55 pm

                   Dosn’t matter how much you get of your backside, because the few that have the capital are not going to allow hard working, skilled and efficient competition to start up.

                   It would mean they might actually have to work for a living, instead of getting paid 750k to cut wages and avoid having to think how things could be run better..
         • Descendant Of Sssmith 6.1.1.1.3

           9 January 2013 at 5:12 pm

           Yeah cause workers at fast food joints are all so powerful aren’t they.

           And it’s all about the dollars eh not the working conditions, the uncertain hours, the way dis-illusioned managers on low pay treat the staff.

           Is that all business in this country can have our kids aspire to – fast food joints.

           They make millions of dollars a year and pay a pittance to their staff and too many of the right would use the coercive power of the state (by removing benefits) to ensure that the status quo for them is maintained.

           Having had a family member get up at 4:00 o’clock in the morning and bike to McDonalds to clean toilets etc and have the supervisor go and shit in the toilet he’d just cleaned and say clean it again ( and I know of many other examples of bad experiences) why would young people (or anyone) want to work in these places. Word gets around and young people aren’t stupid.

           It’s timely that the movie “Compliance” is out cause it reflects some of the reality working in those places has on people. That together with the vocal right denigrating it’s own people as losers all the time hardly inspires people to take these jobs on.

           Lets see low paid + irregular hours + poorly respected jobs + underpaid managers + lack of certainty over hours = yep that’s the job for me.

           http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3688563&page=1#.UOzqmfc5Tcc

           “Gardere goes on to say that it was no accident that the caller was targeting fast food restaurants.

           “Everything is by the book,” he explained. “This is how you serve it. This is exactly how you do it. You follow the book — you’re OK. I believe he picked fast food restaurants because he knew, once you got them away from that book, once it was something outside the manual or the procedures, they would be lost.”

           Hands up who thinks a business is a successful business if it pays only minimum wage?

           Here’s a supposedly successful business as well:

           http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8148217/Ryman-Healthcare-targets-NZX-high

           Gee 80% plus of their income comes from the taxpayer and they pay crap wages for the work done as well. Cleaning a sports stadium pays more than cleaning up old people, washing them, showering them, feeding them, dealing with them dying, treating them with dignity and care and respect.

           It’s funny isn’t it how the theory behind privatising this care was that it would be cheaper for the state. So if it is cheaper ( and the evidence is that it has become cheaper by the vast amount of profit now being made ) at what point does the state benefit from this cheapness.

           Surely now the government should pay Ryman less than they do now – after all they are clearly more efficient so the state should say well done that’s what we wanted – efficiency gains here’s less money per person.

           What do we get instead – wages subsidised by the state through WFF and our money now building rest homes in Australia.
           • LynWiper 6.1.1.1.3.1

             9 January 2013 at 7:48 pm

             +1
           • Rogue Trooper 6.1.1.1.3.2

             9 January 2013 at 8:20 pm

             +2
             • Descendant Of Sssmith …

               9 January 2013 at 11:18 pm

               BTW watching that film isn’t necessarily an easy watch – for most you’ll get angry at the manipulation that occurs.

               But it’s that manipulation that you should think about and question how easy is it to really be manipulated.

               Like for instance believing that those on benefit are lazy bludgers who are all long term unemployed when the evidence shows clearly the actual lack of long term unemployed, the fact that when work is available the vast majority of unemployed work, and by neglecting to consider churn through the benefit system when calculating LTE and portraying the figures via a %age at a given point in time (rather than say a percentage of everyone who has been on benefit in a given year).

               See the statistics as given discount those who went off a benefit yesterday, last week, last month.

               Even point in time data gives pretty low figures and then of course there’s the arbitrary deciding of long term unemployment as a year and also administratively pushing the figures higher by counting those who may have been in work but only had their benefits suspended, say for seasonal work, so that when they come back on benefit their benefit duration appears as longer than it actually was.

               Someone posted a couple of charts on another blog that illustrates that we don’t have a problem with lots of long term unemployed – at least not one we should be castigating our citizens about.

               http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/long-term-unemployment-percent-of-total-unemployment-wb-data.html

               http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/employment/long-term-unemployment-12-months-and-over_20752342-table3

               See us in single digits in 2011. See Australia twice as high.

               Take the percentage for the year and recalculate it by eveyone who was on benefit for that year and you’ll find the number of long term unemployed (even using the over 12 month definition) is less than 2%. Less than 2% of people who were on unemployment benefit in any given year actually stay on for a year – is it really a problem and then consider how many of those long term people are in rural areas with few jobs?

               Equally some of our most castigated communities are the ones who pick New Zealands stonefruit and pipfruit and Kiwifruit and Asparagus – but you know we only give those communities work for a few months then bitch about them for the rest of the year when they struggle to put food on the table.

               You see it’s easy to be manipulated into believing there’s a problem by those who have much to gain by such manipulation.
               • Rogue Trooper …

                 10 January 2013 at 1:46 pm

                 I see the implications for seasonal workers during the winter all around me-Financial struggle and chemical compensation
     • Gareth 6.1.2

       9 January 2013 at 9:26 am

       It seems pretty simple. What they are being offered is not attractive enough to induce them to switch from their current occupation.

       Assuming that you want these jobs filled urgently, you can argue that the business should make the job more attractive, or you can argue that being on an unemployment benefit should be made less attractive.

       Or you can wait, until someone for whom the job is attractive enough comes along.
       • Gosman 6.1.2.1

         9 January 2013 at 10:32 am

         Or you could argue, as someone did in the first link provided, that you should increase the supply of willing unskilled/semi-skilled workers by loosening restrictions on immigration.
         • Colonial Viper 6.1.2.1.1

           9 January 2013 at 10:41 am

           Because you want a country full of desperate serfs and your fellow neighbours willing to accept almost nothing for their kids, against foreign workers used to earning $5/day?

           The better idea is to cause a tightening labour supply in this country so that people can be paid what they are worth.
           • Gosman 6.1.2.1.1.1

             9 January 2013 at 10:56 am

             Correction – What you think they are worth. Slightly different concept.

             Many countries in fact place high restrictions on labour immigration. This leads to problems as well as the benefits of higher wages.
             • Colonial Viper …

               9 January 2013 at 11:00 am

               You always make exceptions for highly skilled professionals. But not when your own school leavers can clean and stack shelves just fine, why import school leavers from Indonesia to do the same job.
               • Gosman …

                 9 January 2013 at 11:33 am

                 Singapore and many places in the Middle east obviously differ in their opinion to you. Places like Saudi are a good example of this. They have a lot of lay about underemployed youth yet import a lot of semi-skilled labour from East Asia.
                 • Populuxe1 …

                   9 January 2013 at 1:15 pm

                   Indentured servitude is a slightly different concept, Gosman
     • felixviper 6.1.3

       9 January 2013 at 10:47 am

       So there are hundreds of thousands of people who are just too lazy to work, but 4 years ago there weren’t.

       Hmm…
     • Colonial Weka 6.1.4

       9 January 2013 at 11:53 am

       “Now people who have no job and would rather take the dole than take a min wage job – they are bludgers.

       If there are jobs – then people who are unemployed should be taking them.

       Simple really.”

       No, it’s not. How many of those jobs are full-time, permanent jobs? How many are part-time or casual hours? To get off a benefit you need enough hours to make that worthwhile, and for most people those hours need to be consistent. The job also needs to be permanent or long term, otherwise you’re just cycling on and off the benefit and each time you lose chunks of income because of the WINZ stand-down period.
       • AsleepWhileWorking 6.1.4.1

         9 January 2013 at 12:36 pm

         Too right mate.

         Also nothing about the spiraling housing costs in Chch – why the hell would you stay in an area to work minimum wage…PLUS 0.50 cents an hour…just so you cannot afford rent unless you share with 10 other people??
     • jingyang 6.1.5

       9 January 2013 at 3:14 pm

       I take it from your comment James that you are not unemployed and in Christchurch then?
       It is quite clear that a lot of people have fled the city – largely because they are simply UNABLE to live there anymore. The housing stock is messed up, jobs have disappeared in the meantime.
       From all the accounts I’ve heard, minimum wage in Christchurch would not pay the inflated rents charged on the remaining houses…and good luck getting a mortgage and an affordable house on minimum wage.

       Not to mention that the concept of ‘mobility of labour’ only applies to that rather small section of the workforce that can afford to move, have few ties, and can also afford the likely time between jobs.
       Why in seven hells would anyone in their right mind move to ChCh to work a minimum wage job?

       The employer quoted in the article (Brumby’s) is now facing a competitive labour market and a bona fide labour shortage, but instead of paying more wants to change the law to allow her to operate just as she did in 2011 before a major earthquake that has permanently altered her city…I find that bizarre.
     • Puddleglum 6.1.6

       9 January 2013 at 6:24 pm

       As I said yesterday, why does this always come down to an argument over individual morality?

       There never will be a world where everyone is a complete saint or a complete sinner, right?

       The general level of ‘morality’ is a result of the general structures in a society. Here’s a question – given that, according to you James, it’s easy for people to start with a minimum wage job and work their way to relative affluence under our present system then why on earth are there any people who would choose to be on less than the minimum wage? (i.e., the dole)

       Wouldn’t people soon learn that working at any job makes them wealthy? And wouldn’t we therefore all be doing it?

       Your views are too simplistic James – and I mean that as a factual statement rather than a personal criticism (I’m not saying you are too simplistic).

       A more accurate view of our world is that – in all sorts of complicated ways – it disempowers and damages large numbers of people, and does so systematically from birth. It is structurally organised to demotivate the vast bulk of people, most of whom only keep going because they can’t see how to stop and get off the treadmill. Why do you think that so many people are now becoming depressed, have anxiety disorders and are generally finding it really hard to cope – financially, emotionally and socially?

       These things are happening not because of ‘welfare dependency’, a mass epidemic of laziness or any other spurious, concocted reason.

       They’re happening because our society and economy generates those psychological and social reactions as a predictable by-product of its operation.

       Shaming only works – when it works at all – in interpersonal settings where there are options for people to avoid or amend for the act that was judged by others as shameful. It does not work at the political level and in economies where options are few and people are left to hang alone.
       • LynWiper 6.1.6.1

         9 January 2013 at 7:52 pm

         +1
       • Rogue Trooper 6.1.6.2

         9 January 2013 at 8:22 pm

         +2
       • Saarbo 6.1.6.3

         9 January 2013 at 10:24 pm

         Good stuff P. I enjoy your thoughtful comments!
   • Gosman 6.2

     9 January 2013 at 9:25 am

     They are no more moronic than someone complaining about potential price gouging for items like building supplies during the rebuild process.
     • Tom 6.2.1

       9 January 2013 at 9:33 am

       Gosman, you would have more credibility if had worked for any substantial length of time on a piece rate, or for a low-wage job together with recent arrivals in a market garden or vineyard.

       As it is, I suspect you are typing your pieces from a table at a restaurant, with the racket of low-wage labour in the background.
       • Gosman 6.2.1.1

         9 January 2013 at 10:18 am

         I worked for a couple of years in a supermarket and am not typing this from any restaurant table so you are quite wrong on both counts.
         • Tom 6.2.1.1.1

           9 January 2013 at 10:59 am

           Your selective answer does not address
           1. piece rates,
           2. the migrant experience,
           3. low wage entrapment,
           4. market gardens,
           5. vineyards,
           6. the restaurant industry.
           Regards, Tom.
     • jingyang 6.2.2

       9 January 2013 at 3:17 pm

       So you find ‘complaining about price gauging” for building supplies to be “moronic” but complaining about paying more to find employees to not be ‘moronic”? Jayzus – you really didn’t understand the point of James’ original post did you?
   • bad12 6.3

     9 January 2013 at 10:31 am

     What that ’employer’ in Christchurch has failed to understand is the ‘labour market’ where labour is in short supply such as Christchurch due to the demolition and rebuild rates for unskilled labour are now in the realm of 25 bucks an hour for unskilled brush-hands,

     Given that and the fact that the supply of labour is restricted by the more able already having been employed to do the un-skilled work the ’employer’ in question is in the first instance offering far below the current ‘market rate’ for unskilled labour in that city,

     The ’employers’ particular WHINE about the applicant showing up with a tongue piercing again highlights a failure of business acumen in not understanding the ‘labour market’, as ‘a market’ those who ‘look better’ to an employer will all have been hired first in ‘the rebuild workforce’, left to this particular employer are those SHE did’nt like the look of and while that’s fucking tough, if thats the choice of applicants who applied for such a low waged labouring position in what is a high waged local enviroment then fucking tough it is her as the employer that has failed herself,

     My question tho would have to be exactly how does a tongue piercing effect a pot walloper from cleaning up the scrime,(it would seem that the employer is just far to fussy),

     If the job of pot walloper is in fact such a glorious occupation that the applicants should turn up correctly made up wearing suits for such fucking miserable money why then does not the employer hire someone to do the jobs the employer currently undertakes and then she can scrub her own fucking pots…
     • fatty 6.3.1

       9 January 2013 at 11:53 am

       well said bad12
       …the applicant had a tongue-piercing, and was therefore an unsuitable employee. The employer is obviously an idiot. Who the hell cares if the person selling a pie or ice cream has a piercing? No wonder their business is failing.
       What a dumbass
       • Populuxe1 6.3.1.1

         9 January 2013 at 1:19 pm

         Exactly – this isn’t the 1950s. Piercings and tattoos are ubiquitous now, and provided it’s not something too grotesque of the Manson swastika on the forehead variety, this silly entitled bitch needs to get over herself.
   • Foreign Waka 6.4

     9 January 2013 at 8:42 pm

     Its mostly the prospect of a temporary job and uprooting for that would not really make sense, would it?
7. Saccharomyces 7

   9 January 2013 at 9:47 am

   This argument is entirely invalid. We don’t have a free labour market. If there was no unemployment benefit I can guarantee those minimum wage jobs would be snapped up.

   As it stands with your argument it’s like saying the supermarket can get $10/kilo to chuck the meat out.
   • Lightly 7.1

     9 January 2013 at 10:07 am

     If there was no unemployment benefit, there would be 60,000 Kiwis and their families in utter destitution, as opposed to the severe poverty they’re in now. But, hey, you think it would be a bit easier to fill minimum wage jobs without paying a little more, so, whooo!

     In reality, of course, the unemployment benefit is so low that it isn’t a barrier to people taking up minimum wage work. What is a barrier is the 70% abatement rate on the benefit. Going from the unemployment benefit into work, you face an effective marginal tax rate of at least 80.5% on work income over $80 a week until the UB is completely abated.

     That effective marginal tax rate is a massive disincentive to taking up part-time minimum wage work. It means you work for 20 hours a week and end up with only $50 more than if you had stayed at home – you wouldn’t bother doing a few hour’s work for $50, Sacch, let alone two a and a half days’. A lot of people are that desperate, of course, but not everyone.
     • Colonial Viper 7.1.1

       9 January 2013 at 10:27 am

       Saccho is fine with destitution and desperation because it makes it easy for employers to find serfs willing to accept $6/hr wages.

       After all that’s a whole $40 per day in hand, and better than starving in the street, isn’t it Saccho?
       • Saccharomyces 7.1.1.1

         9 January 2013 at 10:35 am

         Nope, not at all, I’m just a believer in the purity of the market. If there was no welfare then employers would still have to pay reasonable wages, because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to attract labour.
         • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.1

           9 January 2013 at 10:46 am

           Nope, not at all, I’m just a believer in the purity of the market.

           yeah you are part of the Free Market Priesthood. Wake up and look around, you are leading the people to their doom.

           If there was no welfare then employers would still have to pay reasonable wages, because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to attract labour.

           Try and string words together in a sensible order next time because that sentence is nothing more than falsifiable fundamentalist dogma.

           And try and understand that employers hate competition for labour as it raises their costs i.e. it increases workers wages.
           • Saccharomyces 7.1.1.1.1.1

             9 January 2013 at 11:12 am

             “Wake up and look around, you are leading the people to their doom.”

             Mate, I’m not leading anybody.

             “Try and string words together in a sensible order next time because that sentence is nothing more than falsifiable fundamentalist dogma.”

             Go ahead and falsify it then. You seem big on talk but short on facts.

             “And try and understand that employers hate competition for labour as it raises their costs i.e. it increases workers wages.”

             Wow, you really hate employers don’t you? Most of the employers I know are happy to pay market rate for labour, that’s just how the market works, that’s how business works. They understand that. Of course it raises their costs, but in a low unemployment, high wage situation then usually any successful business will be raking it in through increased economic activity creating more sales and profits for them. Ask any employer which period they were happier with, the boom times of ’03-’07 or ’09- now?
             • Colonial Viper …

               9 January 2013 at 4:19 pm

               Market rate for workers sucks. Market rate for CEOs and directors seem to go up 5%-10% every year. Funny that.
         • Ennui in Requiem 7.1.1.1.2

           9 January 2013 at 12:11 pm

           Sacc, I have no doubt that you would in the absence of any job available for yourself sign up for welfare immediately: I also have absolutely no doubt that you would also take the only job available at 1 cent per hour out of sheer desperation because of your attachment to the purity of the market as a pricing mechanism.

           What I am saying in short (in case you dont quite get it) is that belief in market purity is a form of deluded infantilism. I am sure when you grow up and stop believing in things like fairies and Ayn Rand, that you will become a very nice adult.
           • Saccharomyces 7.1.1.1.2.1

             9 January 2013 at 12:56 pm

             Hi Ennui, I honestly don’t know if I would sign up for welfare immediately. I suspect that I wouldn’t, simply because it sounds like quite a bit of beaurecratic hassle. In my current situation I think welfare would be my last resort, after using up my savings and investments first. I suspect I’d manage to find SOME job by the time they ran out. Of course in a situatrion where I had noting to start with I’d sign up for welfare for sure, but I’d be dammned if I’d let any job pass me by. If the market value for my work was 1 cent per hour I’d have to take it, wouldn’t I? Your reductio ad ridiculum statement doesn’t have any real bearing on reality though, because if wage rates were that low then living costs would be similarly low.

             I’d have to agree that it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to achieve a truly free market, but I feel it’s still a valid aspiration. What’s better communism? That’s already a proven failure.

             Thanks as well for the ad-hominem statement at the end there too. Makes you sound really mature.
             • Populuxe1 …

               9 January 2013 at 1:20 pm

               Ah, “savings and investments” – how nice for you.
               • Saccharomyces …

                 9 January 2013 at 1:24 pm

                 Yep, been putting a bit away since I started working. Back with my paper run at age 12. It’s amazing, you don’t spend all of your money, and you put some (just a little bit) aside for another day. Sometimes you take some of it out to buy stuff, but mostly you just keep contibuting, and it grows.

                 Quite novel, you should try it some time.
                 • Populuxe1 …

                   9 January 2013 at 1:29 pm

                   I probably would if I was being paid enough
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 1:49 pm

                     Collate a journal of every cent you spend in the next month and I’ll find some savings money for you there.
                   • infused …

                     9 January 2013 at 9:37 pm

                     You can always save something. I bet you have the odd beer and takeaways? Still not getting paid enough….
             • felixviper …

               9 January 2013 at 1:47 pm

               “If the market value for my work was 1 cent per hour I’d have to take it, wouldn’t I? “

               And if $13.50 is less than the market value for bakery staff to work for an idiot then they’ll have to pay more, won’t they?
               • Saccharomyces …

                 9 January 2013 at 1:51 pm

                 Yes, I’m not arguing that. But again, the original argument was that it’s a free labour market, and that the market sets the price. This is a fallacy, the labour market in NZ isn’t free, because people are getting money for doing nothing.
                 • One Tāne Huna …

                   9 January 2013 at 1:58 pm

                   Yes, the Labour market is “free”, because “we, the people” – acting with our “free will” set up a thing we call “the government” to do things like set a minimum wage. Similarly, if the dogma you follow were ever applied universally, the “free market” would provide guillotines to fix the problem.
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 2:10 pm

                     Wow OTH, that’s about the best point you’ve put forth all day, bravo!

                     It would’ve been really tidy if it weren’t for the last sentence.

                     I assure you I follow no dogma, I’m perfectly happy to be proven incorrect, I speak from a point of view from my own persoanl experience with open markets.

                     Not sure where the guillotines bit comes in?
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 2:15 pm

                     What’s wrong with the last sentence? Did it provide a little too much real world context or something? Does the idea that the consequences of economic vandalism might be visited on the perpetrators make you a little uncomfortable?

                     Diddums.
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 2:18 pm

                     “…my own personal experience with open markets..”

                     Right then, where’s this fantasy world of yours? Come on, put up or shut up – we know it’s not NZ because you were blithering about the labour market not being “free”.
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 2:40 pm

                     The last sentence was just entirely unnecessary, and didn’t add anything to your argument.

                     My reference to free markets is regarding business in NZ in buying and selling products that aren’t subject to government interference,with a number of competing suppliers.

                     Sure, the product is different, but the principals are the same.
                   • felixviper …

                     9 January 2013 at 2:43 pm

                     Frankly from his anecdotes today about how going to work doesn’t involve spending money, I don’t believe this dick has any experience with real-world markets.
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 3:19 pm

                     “Interference” – weasel words.

                     We’ve seen exactly how unregulated industry and commerce behave given the chance, and if you think guillotines aren’t a part of the inevitable consequences you need to study history.

                     As for NZ, I take it your fantasy business built its own paved roads, provided its own security and fire service, and paid for its employees education, or were you fibbing when you said it hadn’t received any benefits of governance?

                     What did the Objectivist say to the reality check?
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 3:29 pm

                     No, the business didn’t pay for those things, but neither did the customers, so it really doesn’t have anything to do with it.
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 3:37 pm

                     Oh, so “interference” is defined by whatever weasel words you can justify as you go along then? In your dreams: I prefer to consider the whole impact of governance not your cherry-picked subset.
                   • felixviper …

                     9 January 2013 at 3:45 pm

                     “No, the business didn’t pay for those things, but neither did the customers, “

                     Err, that’s the whole point.

                     Either your costs are met by revenue from customers or you’re being subsidised.
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 4:10 pm

                     OK, actually, the business AND the customer paid for them both through taxes.

                     Happy now?
                   • felixviper …

                     9 January 2013 at 4:17 pm

                     I am, but I’m not the one claiming my business isn’t subsidised.

                     Any of your other dogma you’d like to recalibrate in light of this revelation that you’re not actually an autonomous, self-supporting, unsubsidised randian superhero at all?
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 5:41 pm

                     No reclibration required here, the transactions all took place in free market, in the sense that the customer had other options, could have bought from other places, I could have bought product from other suppliers, there was no regulation around price, each party was free to pay as much or as little as they liked, the supplier (and me, the seller) were free to charge whatever we saw fit. There was no-one saying “you must sell at X price”.

                     Some people bought, others didn’t, pretty simple.

                     Everything else stated had an inpact on profit, but had no bearing on the transaction.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 January 2013 at 5:48 pm

                     No such thing as a free market, except in unregulated Somalia
                   • felixviper …

                     9 January 2013 at 9:14 pm

                     You have been arguing that you aren’t subsidised. You are, in more ways than you’ve likely ever considered, by the rest of us via our state. That’s what’s at the heart of the recalibration you made above; you didn’t achieve anything on your own.

                     You’ve also been arguing that the market isn’t “free” due to the participation of the rest of us via our state.

                     These two positions are clearly incompatible. You can’t object to the rest of us participating in the market and simultaneously reap the benefits of that participation.

                     And you don’t actually have a choice in whether to benefit as the vast majority of the subsidisation is on a multi-generational basis.
             • Ennui in Requiem …

               9 January 2013 at 2:31 pm

               Sacc, if you think it a mature aspiration to attempt to achieve a truly free market be my guest and remain a child. That you cannot imagine anything outside the paradigm of market versus communism then you are truly captive to the theories you espouse. Like the equally spurious theories of the Left your free market orthodoxy is just that: theoretical and never proven. There is a common element: people….they just don’t do as the theories say.
               • Saccharomyces …

                 9 January 2013 at 2:47 pm

                 Thanks for some mature commentary Ennui, it’s great to deal with discussion about the topic! (except for the “child” comment but I’ll let that go).

                 I have to agree that there are perhaps there are options than the classic free vs controlled market argument, but personally I find the free market theory the most logical, and the one that has functioned most efficiently for the longest.

                 And I definitely agree that people are unpredictable.

                 But we’re still going away from the point that the author used a free market analogue where the NZ labour market isn’t free. Which was my point in my original comment.
                 • One Tāne Huna …

                   9 January 2013 at 3:32 pm

                   Saccharine, what you are is confused. By your own definition – and in your own words, there are no “free” markets. The successes you claim are the successes of a regulated economy.

                   Free market theory has functioned the most efficiently? [citation needed]

                   Give one – just one – real world example to back up your preposterous bullshit – come on – put up or shut up – define a measure of “efficiency” – I suggest we use the GINI coefficient – but GDP would do just as well, and show me the money, dreamer.

                   PS: whose economy grew at 3% in 2012?
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 3:46 pm

                     OTH, fantastic counter there! You are correct in that in a macroeconomic sense there are no true free market economies.

                     I’m going to have to repeat myself though: We’re still going away from the point that the author used a free market analogue where the NZ labour market isn’t free. Which was my point in my original comment.

                     The analogue was of a transaction taking place in a free market. The seller was free to charge what they wished, and the buyer was free to buy from whomever they wished at a price they found agreeable.

                     The fact is that the labout market in NZ is not a free market. The seller (worker) is free to charge what they wish, but in this case they can elect not to sell their goods (labour) and still get paid. Meanwhile the buyer (employer) is told that they have to pay at least a certain rate, but are free to pay more.

                     The fact is that the analogy that is used by the author is not correct.
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 3:59 pm

                     Not correct? I refer you to my response above: “Yes the labour market is free…”

                     But dig a little deeper. What you are saying in real world terms is that you would like to see the unlucky and unemployable starve on the streets, where you would no doubt complain about having to step over their corpses, or in a fair and equal world, become one of them.

                     80,000-odd of your fellow citizens have joined the dole queue since 2008. Why are you advocating hateful things be done to them? What is wrong with you, and should we in fact appoint some doctors to oversee your progress and protect law-abiding citizens?
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 4:30 pm

                     OTH, I’m saying no such thing, all I’ve been saying is that the analogy is incorrect.

                     IF there was no unemployment benefit then those jobs would be snapped up, you know this.

                     I didn’t say “there shouldn’t be an unemployment benefit” did I?

                     Personally I see the benefits of a free market, but no, I don’t have all the answers, and unfortunately I don’t see a way to it at this point that wouldn’t cause hardship/death etc to many people.

                     I’m not advocating hateful things to be done. I’m not that different to many on here, I’m saying that the current system is broken, I just have a slightly different angle on how it could be fixed, and a different vision on how the future could look. Unfortuantely I don’t have all the answers on how that could be achieved, but that surely doesn’t preclude me from the discuassion does it?
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 6:32 pm

                     broken

                     Ah, a blanket statement with no citations whatsoever behind it, despite the fact that there is a whole world of examples – complete with public policy prescriptions for your edification – out there.

                     The point is, you are advocating “solutions” that have made everything worse everywhere they’ve been tried, instead of looking for countries that do things well and learning from them.

                     Have you even decided whether GINI is a good measure of what you refer to as “efficiency”?
                 • Ennui in Requiem …

                   9 January 2013 at 3:44 pm

                   In which you are correct: the NZ labour market is not free I agree. Having said that no labour market ever has been “free” or will be “free”. You can neither legislate or deregulate markets and expect “freedom”. The reason is that awkward creature…the human. Humans in a transaction have a multitudinous number of reasons for being there, and will all bend the situation to their best advantage: those with “power” will flex it. If you take away restrictions from employers they will warp the market to their advantage, if you encourage overly strong unions they will kill the golden goose. Currently (and I employ 25 people) the advantage is slanted toward employers.
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 3:52 pm

                     You have stated “You can neither legislate or deregulate markets and expect “freedom”.” do you have any suggestions for a middle ground? This isn’t a dig, I’m just interested to hear any theory/hypothesis you have.

                     I agree that a human will behave in a given situation to their best advantage, it’s just human nature. But isn’t a freer market surely going to reach some degree of equilibrium?
                   • Ennui in Requiem …

                     9 January 2013 at 4:18 pm

                     A quick answer is that we are looking into an area of dilemmas and paradoxes. What for one is a positive outcome may be negative to another. Deregulation in my experience produces more negative employment outcomes than light regulation: as an employer I find the ERA a complete procedural pain but it prevents me running roughshod.

                     The best system in my experience was compulsory unionism with an Arbitration Court (supposedly neutral but referred to by the Unions as Labours leg irons). It might sound counter intuitive but in reality worked well, I did not have the hassle of one on one contract / wage negotiations, personal grievances came via the union rep and got sorted without lawyers. More importantly in the market it was much harder to undercut and buy business because we all had pretty much the same cost of labour.
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 4:31 pm

                     Cheers, that’s definitly something for me to ponder!
               • mike e vipe e …

                 9 January 2013 at 6:17 pm

                 CV that market is regulated by AK47s!
                 Sacofeces you don’t even know the difference between macro and micro when it comes to economics!
                 In a perfect world where you had 5 independent competitors in every market it would be doubtful if that even worked and how long would it work!
                 Greed undermines your cultist Theory!
         • Foreign Waka 7.1.1.1.3

           9 January 2013 at 8:56 pm

           I hope you are not pleading for a third world situation. Sorry, I have to jump into this conversation cos I feel that you have not much of an idea what you are saying. The “market” is in the end driven by people and with no protection for the ones in vulnerable positions a virtual anarchy would ensue. It is quite clear that money provides power and power does make a person corrupt (even if they give generously to sooth their conscience). There are many problems that come with that concept, human rights, poverty, child mortality, environmental protection, corrupt political systems, etc. Look around you, travel to the middle east, India, South East Asia, etc.where the death of a starving human being is ignored because it does not represent a novelty. Employers will pay what they have to not what is fair or regarded a living wage. This is a fact, only movies will give you a whitewash version.
     • Saccharomyces 7.1.2

       9 January 2013 at 10:30 am

       Thanks for perfectly illustrating my point Lightly, people don’t want to work because they don’t have to, so the labour maket isn’t truly free.

       I think you’ve lost sight of the responsibility and opportunity aspect here. I’d work for 20 hours a week for $50 more than my benefit money for a few reasons,

       1: It’s still an extra $50 per week. Money I could invest, because using your argument I obvously don’t NEED it.
       2: While I’m working I’m not spending.
       3: It’s valuable experience, and potentially an opportunity to move to full time work, and if nothing else I can put that forward to prospective employers that I’m currently working at least part time.
       4: I’d feel it’s my responsibility to work if I can, and reduce the burden on society.

       But these are still beside the point, the fact remains that we haven’t got a free labour market, unlike the meat business, so the original analogy is still invalid.
       • Colonial Viper 7.1.2.1

         9 January 2013 at 10:34 am

         Only a dickhead would think that working for $2.50/hr in the hand was worth the effort. Tell you what, when was the last time you accepted employment at a rate of $2.50/hr?

         You’re probably also part of the crowd that think that “workfare” is a good idea because it gives people “work experience” (while letting corporations get rid of actual properly paid workers).

         BTW free markets are usually the enemy of labour and the friend of financial capital. Oh which side are you on?
         • Saccharomyces 7.1.2.1.1

           9 January 2013 at 10:55 am

           CV, I can tell you that I would (for exactly the reasons I’ve stated above) work for an effective $2.50 an hour.

           No, I don’t think “workfare” is a good idea either, because that’s just corporate welfare, which I also oppose.

           CV, I don’t really believe in “sides” and haven’t really got one particular movement that I follow, but I most closely associate with anarcho-capitalism and objectivism. Particulalry with the thought that one is one’s own person, and is responsible for ones self. I don’t think that makes me an enemy of labour.
           • One Tāne Viper 7.1.2.1.1.1

             9 January 2013 at 11:04 am

             I think it’s very unfair to put the blame all on you. Your parents and teachers must bear some of the responsibility for your handicap.

             Assuming your objectivism is a consequence of stupidity, that is. If on the other hand you are simply a sociopath then it’s genetic and you probably can’t be helped.
             • Gosman …

               9 January 2013 at 11:29 am

               Now that CV is back don’t you think it is a little bit silly carrying on the homage?
             • Saccharomyces …

               9 January 2013 at 11:42 am

               Tane, I have an iQ in the 99th percentile. Tested, officially, not on some silly internet test. So I’m not handicapped nor stupid.

               As for being a sociopath, I don’t see anything in my comments that would lead you to diagnose sociopathy (by which I assume you mean antisocial personality disorder).

               Thanks for the ad-hom attack though, it really shows what a stand-up, intelligent guy you are. Perhaps you might like to discuss the ideas instead of the man.
               • Gosman …

                 9 January 2013 at 11:50 am

                 You are a sociopath because you don’t agree that a forced collectivised approach to the problems of the world is the best option. It is the sort of innane circular logic that many on the left do so brilliantly.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   9 January 2013 at 12:19 pm

                   You’re a sociopath if you set up a system designed to keep the top 5% in extreme comfort and the majority on very low wages, in what is an extremely wealthy country.

                   You don’t have to be part of the collective, you can go live on a desert island instead mate.
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 1:03 pm

                     Thanks for clearing my name there CV seeing as I have never “set up a system designed to keep the top 5% in extreme comfort and the majority on very low wages” then clearly I’m not a sociopath. Phew, here I was thinking I actually might have been mentally ill.
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 1:09 pm

                     Not setting up: advocating.
                 • One Tāne Huna …

                   9 January 2013 at 12:19 pm

                   forced collectivised approach

                   Strawman. The charge of sociopathic tendencies derives from the adherence to sociopathic dogma.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 January 2013 at 12:51 pm

                     You’ll always be One Tāne Viper to me mate 😀
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 1:00 pm

                     Good to see you back and commenting (I hope) freely.
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 1:01 pm

                     Wow, do either you or CV actually know what sociopath actually means?
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 1:03 pm

                     Wow, you really don’t know what Objectivism does to people, do you?
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 1:29 pm

                     Apparently, according to you it makes one an amphetamine addict. I can tell you that I have not taken any drugs in the time I have known about objectivism.
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 1:38 pm

                     Brace yourself, Saccharine.

                     Ayn Rand was addicted to speed for thirty years. Still feel confident in her conclusions about economics, politics, society, etc?

                     Or would it have been better if she’d simply stuck to cheer-leading for serial killers?
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 1:57 pm

                     You can’t get away from playing the man and not the ball can you? I don’t really care what Ayn Rand chose to do with her time, but I can associate with some of her ideals.
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 2:11 pm

                     Cry, baby.

                     Her “ideals”? Are you taking the piss? Ideology does it for you and you want to be taken seriously? How about actual historical experience – you know, where Objectivist dogma destroys wealth (cf: Greenspan) while its high priestess mooches off the tax-payer due to ill health?
               • One Tāne Huna …

                 9 January 2013 at 12:17 pm

                 Don’t be such a cry-baby. You espouse such a life-hating misery-creating, hope-fucking dogma as Objectivism and then you act all surprised when people suggest you’re a sociopath?

                 Perhaps you can think of some other reason an intelligent person would promote reality-challenged amphetamine-addled sadism.
                 • Saccharomyces …

                   9 January 2013 at 1:12 pm

                   Nice, I actually find the idea of objectivism quite liberating, life-positive and hopeful.

                   I find the idea that man can achieve his own happiness, rather than relying on other people, quite hopeful.

                   I’d find some examples of why you find objectivsm “life-hating misery-creating, hope-fucking dogma” quite interesting I’m sure but seeing as you have so far been short of anything other than personal attacks I won’t hold my breath.
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 1:24 pm

                     Reality check: being cut off from “reliance on other people” is used as a punishment (solitary confinement) in penal systems the world over for a reason, but even then the prisoner is still reliant on others – for the roof over their head if nothing else.

                     It is why castaways crave rescue, why the simulated mission to Mars has found that crew members are experiencing mild depression.

                     Yet another example of Objectivism and reality diverging. If you think it’s such a swell idea, why don’t you go Galt and save us the bother of your witless bullshit ruining any more lives apart from your own?

                     Come on, you first. We’ll still welcome you back when we’ve stopped laughing.

                     PS: seriously, go and set up the Republic of Randistan with all the other little Randies (in a phone-box perhaps) and stop trying to impose it on the sane.
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 1:36 pm

                     Don’t you find the idea of not HAVING to rely on anyone liberating? Don’t you dream of being able to look after yourself?

                     I never said that I was a dyed-in-the-wool fundamental objectivist, merely that it is a movement that I have some appreciation for.

                     I prefer to take a more optimistic look at the world, where one can, and should, look after oneself, not that one should be isolated.
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 1:43 pm

                     “Liberating”

                     I wasn’t constrained in the first place, and I look forward to you setting an example of looking after yourself, since your guru failed so comprehensively.
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 1:58 pm

                     I already am looking after myself, and not relying upon anyone else for my happiness.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 January 2013 at 2:02 pm

                     More self-made man (woman) nonsense? You don’t rely on the friends, workmates, family, economic infrastructure, physical security or social capital around you, to get by day to day?

                     What the Randian self-made hero you are.
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 2:04 pm

                     “I already am looking after myself…”

                     Let’s see how you get on when old age takes its toll. You were of course orphaned at birth? No free education for you. No roads or rule of law where you live.

                     Delusional much?
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 2:13 pm

                     “More self-made man (woman) nonsense? You don’t rely on the friends, workmates, family, economic infrastructure, physical security or social capital around you, to get by day to day?”

                     “Let’s see how you get on when old age takes its toll. You were of course orphaned at birth? No free education for you. No roads or rule of law where you live.”

                     My point is that I haven’t received anything else that isn’t or hasn’t been available to other people.
                   • felixviper …

                     9 January 2013 at 2:16 pm

                     So what? Neither have any of the unemployed people you bitch about.
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 2:54 pm

                     Felix, where have I bitched about unemployed people?
                   • felixviper …

                     9 January 2013 at 3:49 pm

                     Forgive me if I have the wrong person, but weren’t you complaining about people being on the dole while there are (supposedly) plenty of jobs available?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 January 2013 at 3:55 pm

                     Saccho, maybe you had good luck? Maybe you were born to a more stable household environment than others? Perhaps you are brighter? The alignment of the stars favoured you?

                     So it seems you now acknowledge the importance of strong societal and economic supports. That’s good.
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 4:02 pm

                     Felix, I haven’t bitched about unemployed people once. All I’ve done is state that the abour market isn’t free, and that people are choosing not to work because they don’t have to. I haven’t made a judgement statement about that.

                     I’ve also stated the reasons that I, personally, WOULD take a job as described by Lightly way back at 7.1
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 January 2013 at 4:07 pm

                     Labour markets should never ever be free, because that leads to indentured servitude and effective slavery.
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 4:10 pm

                     “I haven’t bitched about…”

                     No, but you’re quite comfortable that they be forced to starve or provide their labour on command, and you seem to think society shouldn’t defend itself against you.
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 4:14 pm

                     OTH, I say again All I’ve done is state that the abour market isn’t free, and that people are choosing not to work because they don’t have to. I haven’t made a judgement statement about that.

                     I haven’t said a word about people starving or being forced to work, merely that the analogy in the article is incorrect.
                   • felixviper …

                     9 January 2013 at 4:20 pm

                     Then I take back the comment about you bitching.

                     My apologies.
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 4:39 pm

                     Apology accepted Felix, thanks for being civil.

                     CV, have I said that labour markets should be free?

                     All I’ve been saying is that the analogy used in the article is incorrect, as it’s comaring a free market transaction with one that isn’t taking place in a free market.
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 4:46 pm

                     Saccharine, I don’t care what feeble excuses you’ve got: you expressed support for Objectivism in the context of a labour market discussion, and you persist in the lie that the labour market isn’t “free”. You don’t get to wash your hands of the implications – I rubbed your nose in them.

                     Now you\’re standing in a pile of corpses saying “Who, me?” in feigned innocent surprise. Try whistling, you’re fooling no-one.

                     Oh, and in case you think I’m being a little hyperbolic, check the infectious disease admission rates. This is your legacy, Saccharine, this is the fruit of your witless adherence to failed hate speech.

                     You don’t like it? Suggest something positive for a change.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 January 2013 at 4:55 pm

                     So Saccho, you agree that labour markets need regulation and control. Good on ya mate.
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 6:36 pm

                     I haven’t received anything else that isn’t or hasn’t been available to other people.

                     A self-evidently nonsensical assertion: that everyone’s circumstances are just like yours.

                     We need better wingnuts.
               • rosy …

                 9 January 2013 at 8:32 pm

                 Always amazes me how the 50% of the population who are in top 1% IQ range are aware they are ‘not handicapped nor stupid’ yet fail to see they may have advantages that the other 99% may not have and are the first to say something like ‘If I can do it, anyone can’.

                 Almost indicates the value of IQ tests, really.

                 p.s. I know 50 percent can’t be in the one percent 😉
             • Populuxe1 …

               9 January 2013 at 1:23 pm

               Steady on OTH, he might just be a bit autistic
               • One Tāne Huna …

                 9 January 2013 at 1:33 pm

                 Collateral damage, as far as I’m concerned. If this were an abstract political discussion you’d have a point, but like anti-vaccine nuts, Objectivists do real harm – Alan Greenspan for instance.

                 I’m more concerned for their victims.

                 When they’ve been stripped of all chance of power, and shown genuine contrition and remorse, then it’ll be time to feel sorry for them and find out if there’s a cure.
                 • Populuxe1 …

                   9 January 2013 at 1:40 pm

                   Objectivism probably would work if everyone was Autistic – it seems to attract them because it doesn’t require all that messy empathy and lateral thinking.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 January 2013 at 2:05 pm

                     That was pretty insightful P1 🙂
                 • Gosman …

                   9 January 2013 at 2:17 pm

                   Weirdly Greenspan probably caused more damage to the US economy by following anti-Objectivist ideas than pro. Lowering interest rates after the Dot com bubble burst and again after the September the 11th attacks in the early 2000’s. This was the major contributing factor in the Housing bubble of the late 2000’s. Just goes to shoy attempting to mitigate market downturns can cause more harm than good in the long run.
                   • mike e vipe e …

                     9 January 2013 at 3:01 pm

                     Lowering interest rates didn’t cause the bubble allowing banks to leverage beyond their means did!
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 January 2013 at 5:34 pm

                     Just goes to shoy attempting to mitigate market downturns can cause more harm than good in the long run.

                     There wasn’t any problem with Greenspan doing that because markets and market actors are rational, and you can rely on market efficiencies to predict and price risk correctly.

                     So says your fucking falsifiable economic theory.
               • Saccharomyces …

                 9 January 2013 at 1:37 pm

                 I probably am!
               • Rogue Trooper …

                 9 January 2013 at 8:35 pm

                 insightful, something’s fermented about that yeast.
           • One Tāne Huna 7.1.2.1.1.2

             9 January 2013 at 12:48 pm

             corporate welfare, which I also oppose.

             You oppose paved roads, police and fire services, the rule of law, an educated workforce? Yeah right.

             Haven’t thought this through very well have you? That’s what happens when you let Amphetamine Aynnie do your “thinking” for you.
             • Saccharomyces …

               9 January 2013 at 1:15 pm

               By corporate welfare I mean government assistance to business.

               As far as roads are concerned, I haven’t actually made a decision on where I stand on infrastructure and government. As for police and fire services, they could be adequately handled by private arrangements and insurances. Of course law would have to be upheld, and would be one of the cores of any government.
               • One Tāne Huna …

                 9 January 2013 at 1:35 pm

                 Nice goal posts, don’t you think? Leave them where they are, there’s a good fellow.
               • mike e vipe e …

                 9 January 2013 at 1:43 pm

                 sakoffeces you are among the 0.01 cult of the near exstinked ACT party, go and have a cup of tea read some economics other than Chicago school propaganda!
                 • Saccharomyces …

                   9 January 2013 at 2:15 pm

                   Sakoffeces… oh hohohohoho, how we laughed.

                   What wit!
               • mike e vipe e …

                 9 January 2013 at 3:03 pm

                 Sakoeces Corporate welfare like ShonKey received when Merrill Lynch was bailed out by the US taxpayer to the tune of $10 million!
                 • Saccharomyces …

                   9 January 2013 at 3:15 pm

                   Exactly, any government bail-out is incorrect in my eyes. I’m as against socialization of risk as I am against socialisation of earnings.
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 4:25 pm

                     Then you have no legs to stand on. Society bailed you out with an education, took the risk that you would come good, but you’ve responded with ill-gratitude and a desire to punish other less fortunate citizens.

                     Still, every society raises the odd traitor.
                   • Saccharomyces …

                     9 January 2013 at 4:42 pm

                     OTH, yes, I got a free education, and like a right dickhead I didn’t even do a very good job of it.

                     What’s that got to do with the topic at hand?

                     If you’ve ever received anything from the current system you aren’t allowed to to look at other options?

                     Surely by your rationale if you’ve ever purchased or sold anything in a private transaction you can’t ever support socialism or anything but a capitalism?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 January 2013 at 4:53 pm

                     Then you better give more credit to the socialist advantages you have had Saccho, and work on strengthening those advantages for the next generation, not undermining them.
                   • One Tāne Huna …

                     9 January 2013 at 5:29 pm

                     You just don’t get it do you? Your guru didn’t live by her delusional rules. Neither do you. Neither has anyone ever, and the closer society has come to implementing them the worse the clusterfuck – Pike River, Alan Greenspan, Somalia.

                     But despite the evidence – that Objectivism makes everything worse and people die, still you persist in advocating it.

                     Striving for improvement is one thing, but you are advocating neglect and destruction: real neglect, real destruction, not in your fantasies, but in the real world, and we have the evidence to prove it.

                     You may as well be telling us that Pol Pot wasn’t a very nice chap, but he had the right idea about intellectuals.
         • unpcnzcougar 7.1.2.1.2

           9 January 2013 at 11:06 am

           I worked for 2 years being paid $2.50 an hour. The difference between DPB and my wage. No WFF or free child care. I went backwards to go forwards. My experience lead to an above average wage in 3 years as opposed to trying to find a job after being on DPB. Having consistent employment at a low rate is better than none. It shows a willingness to knuckle down and carry on despite circumstances because eventually you will be paid more.
           I have employed many people over the years and will always give preference to those who have shown a willingness to work no matter how low the wage as opposed to taking money for doing nothing because of the “$2.50” an hour difference.
           If you have to feed a family $2.50 an hour more is worth it.
           • Colonial Viper 7.1.2.1.2.1

             9 January 2013 at 12:07 pm

             Love to see the advocates for slave wages coming forwards.

             Funny how you are not advocating for a halving of the 70% abatement rate though.
           • Colonial Viper 7.1.2.1.2.2

             9 January 2013 at 12:14 pm

             I wouldn’t give up time with my dog for $2.50 an hour.
           • Ennui in Requiem 7.1.2.1.2.3

             9 January 2013 at 3:46 pm

             Love the name Ms Pussycat.
         • James 7.1.2.1.3

           9 January 2013 at 5:06 pm

           So – you would recommend people DONT take the extra money, and simply sit at home on welfare.

           It saddens me that people are out there that actually think like that.

           Because – its not working for 2.50 per hour – its working for their wages – its not taking a dole check – and that is actually a good thing.
           • fatty 7.1.2.1.3.1

             9 January 2013 at 5:20 pm

             So – you would recommend people DONT take the extra money, and simply sit at home on welfare.

             Yes, because under our current system, its a logical response.
             • Colonial Viper …

               9 January 2013 at 5:24 pm

               The Right love to talk “incentives”, and frankly $2.50/hr is not an incentive, it’s an insult.

               I’m waiting for a Right Winger to come forward and propose halving the 70% abatement rate on people wanting to work. Come on, where are ya? I thought you guys liked the idea of incentivising to work?
               • fatty …

                 9 January 2013 at 5:33 pm

                 you’ve probably seen this rsa animate, its about how we incentivise people to work.

                 As you say CV, $2.50 is not an incentive to work. That’s a loaf of bread an hour. Only a sadistic prick could claim that to be an incentive
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   9 January 2013 at 5:35 pm

                   The serfs should be grateful for drippings from the lord’s table…yes that’s a great video fatty…
               • rosy …

                 9 January 2013 at 7:48 pm

                 2.50 per hour doesn’t pay the cost of being employed. Transport, clothing and even toiletries. And as for childcare….. The dole is bare minimum daily survival rates and if a job effectively reduces that rate its impossible to take it.
                 Employers have to up their pay rates to at least a living wage, not the dole + a portion of transport costs if they want to ‘compete’ for staff. Somehow they prefer their employees you pay for their own jobs and then expect loyalty for their ‘charity’ in providing the employment ‘opportunity’. Any good employer knows it doesn’t work like that.
       • Lightly 7.1.2.2

         9 January 2013 at 12:05 pm

         $2.50 net an hour is unlikely to cover your costs of working – transport for starters, let alone childcare
       • felixviper 7.1.2.3

         9 January 2013 at 12:23 pm

         “2: While I’m working I’m not spending.”

         Says the person who has obviously never spent a day at work in their life.
         • Saccharomyces 7.1.2.3.1

           9 January 2013 at 1:17 pm

           Felix, apart from annual leave, sick leave and rostered days off I haven’t spent a day NOT working since 1998.
           • Colonial Viper 7.1.2.3.1.1

             9 January 2013 at 2:07 pm

             Roughly 100M Americans haven’t been as lucky as you.
             • Saccharomyces …

               9 January 2013 at 2:17 pm

               And? What’s that got to do with anything? I thought this discussion was about the state of employment candidates and/or the attitudes of employers in CHCH? What does America have to do with anything?
               • Colonial Viper …

                 9 January 2013 at 3:37 pm

                 Follow your general theme of “I’m fine Jack”
                 • Saccharomyces …

                   9 January 2013 at 3:56 pm

                   CV, that was a response to Felix stating I’d obviously never done a days work in my life. I was merely stating that I actually have.
                   • felixviper …

                     9 January 2013 at 4:22 pm

                     Then you must know that your assertion that you don’t spend money while you’re working is utter bullshit.
                 • Saccharomyces …

                   9 January 2013 at 4:46 pm

                   Felix, lol, you are correct. But I know I spend a truck-ton more when I’m not at work!

                   But fair enough, it’s a pretty weak point, and not one that would have major weighting in my decision-making.
     • Colonial Viper 7.1.3

       9 January 2013 at 10:30 am

       What is a barrier is the 70% abatement rate on the benefit. Going from the unemployment benefit into work, you face an effective marginal tax rate of at least 80.5% on work income over $80 a week until the UB is completely abated.

       And this is fucking stupid. Labour supporters, National supporters, I am sure you all can see that this is fucking stupid and a very substantial barrier to people choosing part time employment (which is the most common kind of job being created today).

       FFS Labrats and Natrorters, get together on a common issue and sort this out so that people have a bigger incentive to get off their asses and into the workforce.
       • mike e vipe e 7.1.3.1

         9 January 2013 at 5:45 pm

         +170,OOO cv
   • AsleepWhileWorking 7.2

     9 January 2013 at 12:45 pm

     Oh pleeze, this argument is entirely invalid because it’s a theory. If the employer wants to live with that kind of environment then they could easily leave for Singapore who have NO WELFARE, and NO MINIMUM WAGE.

     The employer has made the choice to be here in NZ and is therefore subject to the rules of this country which include welfare. They are grown adults and free to leave at any time, free to offer a better deal to attract workers, or free to go under because they have no staff. No sympathy here.
     • Saccharomyces 7.2.1

       9 January 2013 at 1:21 pm

       Fantastic, that’s about the best rebuttal I’ve seen on here. Salient point there, that the employers have chosen to operate their business in the NZ environment.

       By the way that’s hypothesis, not theory. It’s untested.

       Still doen’t change the fact that the original analogy is still incorrect.
     • Gosman 7.2.2

       9 January 2013 at 1:58 pm

       Free also to advocate changing the laws of the land as well.
     • infused 7.2.3

       9 January 2013 at 9:54 pm

       And you get paid shit loads in Singapore if you’re skilled. Figures.
   • mike e vipe e 7.3

     9 January 2013 at 1:10 pm

     Well thats what supermarkets do rather than discounting perishables when their use by date is coming up they dump to keep prices high.
     The duopoly in NZ is screwing us over
     • Saccharomyces 7.3.1

       9 January 2013 at 1:39 pm

       Hmmm, obviously you haven’t seen the “reduced to clear” or “reduced for quick sale” price stickers on stuff approacing it’s best before dates. I love ’em, snap them up.
       • mike e vipe e 7.3.1.1

         9 January 2013 at 2:45 pm

         what utter bs sacofeces they only clear a fraction of what they dump!
         • Saccharomyces 7.3.1.1.1

           9 January 2013 at 2:57 pm

           I’ve worked in the supermarket business, and they don’t dump anything that they don’t absolutely need to.
           • mike e vipe e 7.3.1.1.1.1

             9 January 2013 at 3:07 pm

             sakofeces Your lying Farmers friends of mine get tons of perfectly good produce for free because if they reduced that much product the consumer would just wait till the discounting started just like overseas where there are more competitors in the market!
             • Saccharomyces …

               9 January 2013 at 3:21 pm

               Why don’t your mates start up a business selling their “perfectly good free produce”? Could be a good earner there!
               • McFlock …

                 9 January 2013 at 3:30 pm

                 Indeed:
                 Take a free resource, and no value, sell it for money.
                 Market forces in action.

                 Take a free resource, distribute it to people who need it without demanding a return.
                 Human decency in action.
                 • McFlock …

                   9 January 2013 at 3:41 pm

                   shitballs. “add no value”, not “nad”
               • mike e vipe e …

                 9 January 2013 at 3:44 pm

                 sacoffeces As you have read above you may be able to figure out they are already doing so!
                 But thats not the point we are being screwed over by your socold free market!
           • Rogue Trooper 7.3.1.1.1.2

             9 January 2013 at 8:40 pm

             rubbish! I’ve seen heaps dumped to maintain margins
   • jingyang 7.4

     9 January 2013 at 3:30 pm

     Saccharomyces

     Are you seriously suggesting that NZ needs a “free labour market”?
     Have you not noticed the progress that the civilized world has made in the last 120 or so years?
     There are many Asian countries that are building a welfare system (Taiwan for example) – at the same time as people like yourself in Western countries want to dismantle them…

     Do you not think that quite apart from the point that ‘Lightly” makes about 60,000 destitute Kiwis, that you yourself would never be in position that you needed a decent minimum age job or benefit to survive on? There are plenty of examples in the US now of just how many Americans are just one accident, one redundancy or one disaster away from poverty. Is that really what you want for Aotearoa New Zealand?
     • mike e vipe e 7.4.1

       9 January 2013 at 3:40 pm

       Ying and Yang in the US, states with strong welfare systems have the lowest unemployment and the highest wages funny that tight arse almighty hasn’t studied the home of the free market considering he’s and economic’s graduate!
       • higherstandard 7.4.1.1

         9 January 2013 at 3:44 pm

         That’s interesting, have you got a link for that ?
8. vto 8

   9 January 2013 at 10:21 am

   What do employers expect? Pay peanuts get monkeys.

   As for the idea that people who choose the dole over minimum slave wage being bludgers ….. I say that the bludgers are the employers bludging off their workers by not paying enough to live on.

   The settings around wages, profit, revenues, taxes, etc in this country are so fucked up that our wealthy country cannot even support its few residents. And that is evidence that the system is broken.

   I laughed when I read of the plight of those employers – reaping what you sow, I think it is called.
   • Gosman 8.1

     9 January 2013 at 10:39 am

     I agree that they also have the power in their own hands to resolve the problem if they wish to pay more in wages. Of course they might think it wouldn’t be beneficial to them to do so. That is their right.
     • Colonial Viper 8.1.1

       9 January 2013 at 10:48 am

       No it isnt.
       • Saccharomyces 8.1.1.1

         9 January 2013 at 10:57 am

         Yes it is.
       • Gosman 8.1.1.2

         9 January 2013 at 10:59 am

         I believe it is, unless you think you should force people to employ people against their will. If so then by all means push this as your solution. I would love to see a leftist argue for this.
         • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.2.1

           9 January 2013 at 11:02 am

           Yes, employers need to employ more people. And pay those people more. I thought that was obvious.
           • Gosman 8.1.1.2.1.1

             9 January 2013 at 11:16 am

             We are both in agreement that it would be generally a good thing. However it is the method of achieving it we differ on. I suspect many people would not like to be forced to do what you suggest. But go ahead and advocate for it. I will have a lot of fun if you do so.
             • Colonial Viper …

               9 January 2013 at 12:30 pm

               But your method impoverishes most New Zealanders, and helps only a relatively few capital owners.
               • Gosman …

                 9 January 2013 at 1:12 pm

                 In your opinion. It certainly hasn’t had that outcome in places like China where more people are enjoying higher incomes than ever before after they adopted more market friendly policies.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   9 January 2013 at 2:09 pm

                   Of course its helped China!

                   They took the work (check your shoes, socks, underpants, shirt, glasses, watch and iPhone) from everywhere else in the world, where those jobs used to exist, and did it for 1/5 the labour cost. We still got charged 4/5 of the sticker price.

                   (The foreign corporations skimmed off the other 2/5 as extra profit for their own shareholders, which is why they pushed for “free markets” and “gloablisation”).
                   • Gosman …

                     9 January 2013 at 2:27 pm

                     The point you avoided is that the average worker in China is much, much better off than before they started pursuing this more free market approach. This is not consistent with the view that foreign investment and free market policies drives down the cost of labour.

                     India after independence decided to follow an approach you suggest and they stagnated for decades until a mild opening up in the last few years. Please note that the biggest wealth generators in India (in terms of wages) are actually the outsourcing and IT companies that rely on Foreign investment and trade.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 January 2013 at 5:27 pm

                     Oh yes, China is a far modernised and richer nation for taking manufacturing, income and jobs from developed nations like ours.

                     In fact, China has been a force of global wage deflation allowing higher corporate profits for multinationals and higher dividends for their shareholders.

                     What a lovely circumstance, one might almost think it deliberately set up this way.
                   • KJT …

                     9 January 2013 at 8:42 pm

                     The average Chinese would be considerably better off today if all that work, resources and capital had been put into feeding and housing Chinese instead of forced cheap slave labour, to make Western corporates richer supplying shoddy manufactured goods.
                 • jingyang …

                   9 January 2013 at 3:33 pm

                   Yes, and the price of those Chinese becoming better off, was the reduction in wages, employment and manufacturing her in NZ, and the US, and the UK etc etc…
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 January 2013 at 5:40 pm

                     Exactly. The pouring of massive excess Chinese labour into the recently globalised “free market” depressed the pricing of labour all over the world. Which was a result which suited corporate capital perfectly.

                     So along with price deflation of products (made in China) on our store shelves, we got signficant employment and wage deflation in our local neighbourhoods.
                 • mike e vipe e …

                   9 January 2013 at 3:48 pm

                   Only if they keep the secret police beating up unionists and don’t take the nets away from the iphone factory. The Chinese are noe going backwards as the wages are not meeting living costs .Factories are relocating back to the US as well!
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 January 2013 at 5:43 pm

                     yep just google “ant tribes”
9. shorts 9

   9 January 2013 at 10:41 am

   Where do these people advertise these postions… how many people applied and were given an interview… whats the staff turnover and conditions (outside of minimal wage) at these places… where is the interview with one of the prospective dead beats – you know what is the actual story here

   cause these sorts of puff pieces are common… and they all read the same – unemployed lazy… empolyers frustrated = instant answer more immigration

   Did Connor English wrote both pieces?
10. Pete 10

    9 January 2013 at 10:43 am

    For all his union-busting proto-authoritarian inclinations, Henry Ford was right when he increased his worker’s wages and shortened their hours to an 8 hour day in 1913. Not only to reduce worker attrition, he reasoned he wouldn’t sell many Model T’s if his own workers couldn’t even afford a car.
    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      9 January 2013 at 10:48 am

      I wonder how many Foxconn workers can afford a nice new iPhone 5.
      • Saccharomyces 10.1.1

        9 January 2013 at 10:58 am

        The real trick is to get a job where they give you one 😉
        • felixviper 10.1.1.1

          9 January 2013 at 6:24 pm

          Seriously? You think the workers at Foxconn factories have that option?
          • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1.1

            9 January 2013 at 6:34 pm

            Well, I’m sure if they worked harder and longer than they do now, and proved their loyalty on $2.50/day, they would.
            • infused 10.1.1.1.1.1

              9 January 2013 at 9:59 pm

              I’d say we should be worrying about our own country first. Never understood that. Fuck the rest are doing. Fix here first.
              • felixviper …

                10 January 2013 at 7:31 am

                I might take that comment more seriously if I’d ever seen you expressing ideas that would improve our own situation.

                The sad truth is that you always seem to side with those who are moving our economy closer and closer to the type in which companies like Foxconn can thrive.
          • Foreign Waka 10.1.1.1.2

            9 January 2013 at 9:26 pm

            It would be one with “bell’s and whistles” reminding you that its time to go back to work 😉
      • mike e vipe e 10.1.2

        9 January 2013 at 6:04 pm

        Gos would argue that they have a very good safety net!
11. Gosman 11

    9 January 2013 at 11:06 am

    I have a question regarding this belief that letting the market decides tends to drive down wages. If this was correct how come in places where people are offshoring businesses to (e.g. China) wages are increasing?

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2012-05/29/content_15416969.htm
    • mike e vipe e 11.1

      9 January 2013 at 6:03 pm

      The reverse is true average median wages aren’t improving the only reason China is doing any good is we are subsidizing them in the developed countries by keeping our dollar high and allowing the Chinese govt to break labour laws dumping laws environmental laws monopolistic laws subsidising laws etc etc.
12. Tom 12

    9 January 2013 at 11:16 am

    Gosman, chew on this one ..

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2012/08/13/privatisation-is-going-out-of-fashion/
    • Gosman 12.1

      9 January 2013 at 11:19 am

      Mildly interesting. I suspect that the Southern Europeans divesting themselves of their loss making parastatals will alter this over the next few years.
      • Tom 12.1.1

        9 January 2013 at 11:35 am

        The pendulum moves both ways ..
      • mike e vipe e 12.1.2

        9 January 2013 at 2:50 pm

        goose like the billion dollar greek lotto business that was sold of for chicken feed by the corrupt right wing Greek govt leaving greek tax payers out of pocket to the tune of 10 to 15 billion dollars!
        Not to mention your former employers fraud of the Greek tax payer by Goldman Sachs!
13. Tom 13

    9 January 2013 at 11:17 am

    .. and this

    http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2012/08/these-were-the-public-sector-games/
    • Gosman 13.1

      9 January 2013 at 11:25 am

      An opinion piece almost as worthwhile as yours is to me.
      • Tom 13.1.1

        9 January 2013 at 11:33 am

        Such wit !
14. Rich 14

    9 January 2013 at 11:25 am

    The company was even struggling to find people to stand with Stop/Go signs to manage traffic at road works

    In first world countries, they usually use a portable traffic light. Less than $300 a week. Doesn’t need smokos or lunchbreaks. You can even leave them out all night to avoid having to fill the hole in.
15. Augustus 15

    9 January 2013 at 11:27 am

    And on cue, here is what employers like the exampled one are trying to achieve.
    Dairy farmers are in no position to pay good wages now, are they?

    These poor fellows must be the only dairy workers in the country on $ 14 an hour, for split shifts, weekend work, isolation and all the other disadvantages that go with such jobs. According to this Herald Piece the average wage for skilled labour passed $ 20 in 2011.

    Not only do taxpayers build new irrigation schemes for these vultures, they than actively avoid paying market rates to their sponsors.
    • tc 15.1

      9 January 2013 at 11:36 am

      Don’t forget the roads, well funded ‘private’ schools for their kids and all those emissions they don’t pay for yet we do to name a few
16. DH 16

    9 January 2013 at 11:43 am

    This is the type of issue that Labour & the Greens should be assaulting the Govt on, although I daresay Labour would be just as clueless based on past performance

    We often read in the ‘paper about 1000 people turning up to appy for jobs when a new supermarket or similar opens in Auckland & other areas with high unemployment. This ChCh job thing is clearly a localised problem and yet they call for immigrants to fill jobs that unemployed around the country would be delighted to take if they had job mobility.

    ChCh has shown that Govt has to provide where the market won’t and on that front the Nats have been the most incompetent mob in recent history.

    Cheap accommodation is the biggest obstacle to job mobility and ChCh clearly needs heaps more on-demand temporary accommodation. This Govt has done naff-all about that, they’re instead pandering to venal landlords ripping everyone off.

    The Yanks have been suffering economically and prices for the likes of new caravans there are staggeringly cheap. You can land the likes of these in NZ for well under $40k;

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/NEW-2013-26-Bunkhouse-Lite-Light-Travel-Trailer-Bunks-NEVER-Used-a-k-a-26BH-/181054854979?pt=RVs_Campers&hash=item2a27b5d743

    That’s a 26foot caravan, fully equipped, brand spanking new, $NZ15,000. Not perfect but adequate enough for the short/medium term. Would probaby cost $10-15k to ship ’em here. Could rent them out for $150-200 week and still make a healthy profit out of them.

    Deal direct with the mfr, get them wired up 230v and you solve the accommodation problem in ChCh. You’ll then get plenty of unemployed Kiwis moving to ChCh looking for work. It needs a Govt to do something like that because of the scale and land/sanitary requirements.
    • shorts 16.1

      9 January 2013 at 11:54 am

      DH they’ve already done this to seom degree – well without the need to import foreign made (I assume) caravans

      http://www.ccc.govt.nz/homeliving/civildefence/chchearthquake/temporaryhousing.aspx
      • DH 16.1.1

        9 January 2013 at 12:22 pm

        Yeah I know they have but it hasn’t been on the scale required and it hasn’t been targeted at accommodation for transient workers. They were also pretty expensive.

        The point I was trying to make is that the jobs shortage is local to ChCh and the reason unemployed people around the country won’t move to ChCh looking for work is because there’s no cheap readily-available accommodation. They really need thousands of temporary homes, not the few hundred they’ve built

        Caravans are useful because they can sell them or move them to other needy areas when they’re no longer required. They’re presently incredibly cheap in the US so why not make the most of their economic woes

        The ChCh rebuild is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get a whole bunch of struggling Kiwis off the dole and into work. And what does this Govt do? It turns to immigrant labour, many of whom will be used to living five to a room & no doubt will be paying extortionate room rates to venal landlords.
        • Gosman 16.1.1.1

          9 January 2013 at 12:26 pm

          Looks like you’ve spotted a market opportunity there. Why don’t you and some of your mates get together and start importing caravans for Christchurch?
          • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1.1

            9 January 2013 at 12:29 pm

            A $25M government sponsored starting fund would help. You know, because the Government said it would help.
            • DH 16.1.1.1.1.1

              9 January 2013 at 12:41 pm

              Precisely. Gosman there thought he’d be a wanker and as usual missed the point.

              Someone walking into a Winz office in Auck or any other area should be offered a job in ChCh and accommodation to go with it. Jobs problem solved.
              • AsleepWhileWorking …

                9 January 2013 at 12:51 pm

                Which clearly isn’t happening as WINZ most certainly don’t offer any such thing.
        • karol 16.1.1.2

          9 January 2013 at 6:29 pm

          Caravans are a very short term solution, and what do you do with them once they are no longer needed?

          I have considered getting a caravan or hire cabin because they seem so cheap compared with the cost of rents in Auckland. But you need a piece of land to put it on, and that land needs to have connections for water, waste water, sewerage, and electricity. It isn’t that straight forward.
          • DH 16.1.1.2.1

            9 January 2013 at 11:41 pm

            It doesn’t have to be caravans Karol, could be portacoms on skids or even permanent structures. They just happen to be an extremey cheap option and the lower the cost the less you can rent them out for, people on $14/hr would much rather pay $100 in rent than $300.

            Must be stacks of vacant land that can be used and ablution blocks etc don’t cost much to put up, the country is full of caravan/motorhome parks it’s not a new idea.

            All I’ve done there is identify where I see the real problem is with the ChCh jobs issue and proffer a low-cost solution. I don’t think anyone here would disagree when I say that if unemployed people around the country were offered both work and low-cost accommodation in ChCh there would be absolutely no problem filling all the job vacancies with Kiwi workers. It’s something the Govt should be sorting out.

            Btw if you’re looking at caravans take a look thru the slideshow on the link I gave further up, they’re not slums. Shows how much we get ripped off for building materials in this country, US isn’t exactly cheap yet they’re less than half what you’d pay here for something similar.
17. Alinsky 17

    9 January 2013 at 12:02 pm

    The purpose of the free market is to:

    1. Create disincentives for workers and locals to own the NZ means of production.

    2. Remove all barriers for foreign corporations so they can destroy and/or devour NZ companies.

    3. Remove all impediments to capital flows so foreign multinationals can buy up the country and then freely extract profits to the no tax countries where they operate from.

    4. Remove barriers to creating monopolies so we have no choices about whom we buy from or we sell to.

    5. Remove barriers for foreign corporations to flood the NZ market with their goods and services.

    We are broke because we are slaves, working for and buying from our foreign masters.

    It isn’t rocket science. If you are always a tenant, the landlord accumulates wealth but you NEVER can.
    • Gosman 17.1

      9 January 2013 at 12:24 pm

      What disincentives does the market create for workers and locals to own the NZ means of production?
      • Colonial Viper 17.1.1

        9 January 2013 at 12:27 pm

        Non-availability of affordable, accessible, long term capital.
      • Alinsky 17.1.2

        9 January 2013 at 12:31 pm

        “What disincentives does the market create for workers and locals to own the NZ means of production?”

        Do NZ companies distribute shares to their waged employees? No, only share options to top management.

        A “free market” for the bosses to get richer but “You workers keep your noses to the grindstone or your job will be redefined and you will have to reapply for it.”
        • Gosman 17.1.2.1

          9 January 2013 at 12:39 pm

          I’m pretty sure some NZ companies direct shares to their employees. Certainly there is nothing stopping them from doing so. However you made the claim that the free market provides disincentives for workers and locals to own the means of production in NZ. You have yet to provide any justification for this rather bizarre view.
          • Colonial Viper 17.1.2.1.1

            9 January 2013 at 12:42 pm

            Lack of accessible, patient capital.
          • Alinsky 17.1.2.1.2

            9 January 2013 at 12:50 pm

            Gosman

            Not long ago the ASB, BNZ, and all our major banks were NZ owned. Now none of them are. Last year $4,000,0000,000 in bank profits ($4 billion) were paid from NZ bank customers to overseas bank owners. That is $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in NZ.

            How fucking stupid can we be to say this is a “benefit of the free market.”
            • Gosman 17.1.2.1.2.1

              9 January 2013 at 1:04 pm

              Quite wrong. The NZ banking industry has always had a strong level of international ownership. Westpac, ANZ, and National Bank were set up as subsidaries of overseas banks. Even NZ owned banks required a large amount of overseas capital to help get them started. A lot of the capital that helped develop the NZ economy in the 19th Century was sourced from the UK.
              • Colonial Viper …

                9 January 2013 at 2:14 pm

                A few billion dollars a year was still extracted out of NZ businesses, workers and employers by the big banks.

                We don’t need overseas capital to create our own big bank. $1B extra for KiwiBank should do it nicely, and that could be raised in NZ no probs.
                • Gosman …

                  9 January 2013 at 2:33 pm

                  Do it then and don’t expect the government to do it for you.
                  • McFlock …

                    9 January 2013 at 3:24 pm

                    If the government does it, WE are doing it.

                    Never really got the concept of representative democracy, did you gos?
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    9 January 2013 at 6:36 pm

                    Why shouldn’t I expect the Government to do it? That’s what it’s there for, to look after the needs of the nation that individuals cannot manage by themselves.
                    • higherstandard …

                      9 January 2013 at 6:39 pm

                      Why can’t individuals do it for themselves ?

                      What’s to stop people putting their savings/mortgages into Kiwibank ?
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      9 January 2013 at 6:46 pm

                      Government can do it better cheaper and faster. The big Australian banks have massive financial resources. Time to amp KiwiBank up to the big leagues.

                      And you are right, once KiwiBank has that backing, those clients will come flocking to it. It’ll be great.
                    • higherstandard …

                      9 January 2013 at 7:34 pm

                      Rubbish the government dumping $1 billion of our money in Kiwibank will only serve to make the balance sheet of Kiwibank $1 billion more in the black while the government will have to borrow the $1 billion seems a pointless exercise unless you’re advocating that the “Cullen fund” monies be used for that purpose ?
      • Ennui in Requiem 17.1.3

        9 January 2013 at 12:48 pm

        Hi Gos, obviously they never taught you liquid hydrogen propulsion unit technology. Markets, well they are simpler: even you (in fact especially you given your comments) should understand the vagaries of human nature. There is only so much money in a market transaction and we “fight” over who gets what. As an employer / wealthy individual how much my employees get and what they can use it to purchase is curtailed severely because I control the job and cash at source. Very nice of me.

        Howzabout you just get a little more honest and stop clothing garbage with nice cuddly little theories about market purity etc? Tell it how it is with all the venality and antisocial bits included.
        • Gosman 17.1.3.1

          9 January 2013 at 1:06 pm

          Noone is denying markets can have ‘bad’ outcomes as well as ‘good’. That is quite different to trying to state that they actively disincentivise something. You are trying to change the subject of the discussion to a frankly irrelevant point.
          • Ennui in Requiem 17.1.3.1.1

            9 January 2013 at 2:06 pm

            No Gos, the point is that you are missing the point completely (as per normal). Markets produce any number of fairy tales, yours from the “right” and others from the “left”. The commonality is that their theories absent the major component of a market…people. And people do people stuff.

            Try and fit the theories around some of the loonies I work with, (or perhaps yourself) and then try to predict “rational market” outcomes based upon “rational” behavior. Maybe it might be better to define “markets” as an equivalent of a mental hospital with no secure psychiatric wards to lock the real psychos in. Get the point about “market theories”?
            • Gosman 17.1.3.1.1.1

              9 January 2013 at 2:40 pm

              I think you’re ranting here. What is your point other than you don’t think markets produce outcomes that you regard as ‘good’ all of the time? Remember noone is arguing that they do.

              I presume you do think they produce some outcomes that can be regarded as ‘good’ by you some of the time, or are you totally anti market?
              • Ennui in Requiem …

                9 January 2013 at 3:03 pm

                Gos, rant? Maybe just to get you to see how ridiculous ascribing good or bad outcomes based upon spurious theories is. I have the same ill regard for such other theoretical orthodoxies as Marx’s historic determinism etc. They are all turned into a pile of nonsense by those wonderful things…people. People are just not reliably predictable…so inconvenient.

                Am I anti market? No, nobody from the Left has offered up a better price setting mechanism. That however does not make it rational, a Utopian ideal or Hell. It is a mere construct of people doing transactions.
18. Gosman 18

    9 January 2013 at 12:34 pm

    There’s a ton of capital out there, a lot of it even controlled by organisations and people sympathetic with leftist ideals. The trouble is you can’t be arsed getting organised enough to get access to it. Instead you whine about how unfair the world is and demand that government make it easy for you by handing it to you on a platter. It is rather pathetic to see sometimes.
    • One Tāne Huna 18.1

      9 January 2013 at 1:15 pm

      Well it would be pathetic if it were true. In fact, it’s time for your reality check: GDP grows faster when the left runs the country, unemployment was at a record low in 2007.

      It’s your perceptions that deserve our sympathy.
    • Colonial Viper 18.2

      9 January 2013 at 6:37 pm

      There’s a ton of capital out there, a lot of it even controlled by organisations and people sympathetic with leftist ideals.

      Of course, and my point is to make it available for needed enterprises and projects.
19. Alinsky 19

    9 January 2013 at 12:41 pm

    Gosman

    In case you missed the aftermath of the 1987 crash, NZ’s so-called “share market” is an old boys network where small investors are treated like trash.

    The big question: Do you disagree with my thesis that we are broke because others own our country and “free market” policies are the tool used to keep it that way?
    • Gosman 19.1

      9 January 2013 at 1:19 pm

      Don’t use the NZ Stock market then. Create your own market for reallocating surplus capital for socially desirable ends. The problem is you can’t be bothered to do the hard work on this and would seeminglt prefer to force others to provide you their surplus capital via the mechanism of the State.
      • Colonial Viper 19.1.1

        9 January 2013 at 2:20 pm

        Yep. Via the state. That’s the fastest and most efficient way of doing it. (As SCF, AMI, canterbury farmers, roading contractors etc know full well).
      • scotty 19.1.2

        10 January 2013 at 6:46 am

        Yeah, we should create our own stock market, just like Gosman , who,not wanting to be hypocritical , put in the ‘hard work’ and created his own power company, rather than usurp control of an existing state owned asset.
20. mike e vipe e 20

    9 January 2013 at 1:14 pm

    Goose only people with a good track record in business are getting access to those funds other than the re ignited housing bubble you are Bullshitting badly!
    • Gosman 20.1

      9 January 2013 at 1:22 pm

      There is a heck of a load of capital controlled by left leaning organisations and people. Instead of feeding these ‘horrible exploitative evil capitalist’ organisations simply convince people to redirect their funds to you and your mates to be invested in the areas you wish them to invest in. Or can’t you be bothered with the hard work involved in doing that?
      • mike e vipe e 20.1.1

        9 January 2013 at 3:12 pm

        goose that should be redirect monies handed out to failed corporate greedies(ML, Bof A, SCF and Don’t forget your old employer the very corrupt Golman Sachs US$ 66 billion in hand outs from the US taxpayer etc)
21. Alinsky 21

    9 January 2013 at 4:14 pm

    I’ve been away for a few hours and am catching up.

    My conclusion: Gosman is not worth replying to.

    You might just as well try to discuss religious tolerance with a Jihadist or the scientific method with a faith healer. Or maybe he’s on some very strong medication.
    • mike e vipe e 21.1

      9 January 2013 at 5:57 pm

      Alinisky He’s addicted to Freidmans theory which is a fundamentalist religion of selfishness and self-righteousness!
      There has been a lot of economic research done before and since and has proven most of his theory wrong.
22. infused 22

    9 January 2013 at 9:52 pm

    Saccharomyces is the best thing to happen to this place. A thread I actually read through.
23. Alinsky 23

    9 January 2013 at 10:11 pm

    mike e vipe e

    I have some horrible news for Grosman.

    Before he died, Milton Friedman admitted he had made some fundamental errors such as the fact that markets really do need oversight and regulation or the strong devour the weak and create monopolies which are definitely not efficient. I hope this info doesn’t unhinge Grosman. I suspect he desperately needs his ideology.

    “Passionate hatreds can give meaning and purpose to an empty life.” (Eric Hoffer from The True Believer)
    • xtasy 23.1

      9 January 2013 at 11:00 pm

      Alinsky: You are mixing up names. There is the infamous poster ‘Gosman’ here, but he or she is NOT Grosman, or rather Grossman, who was that high calibre CEO they hired for MSD and WINZ a year and a half ago, only to leave again in despair, with a nice pay-off from the NZ government, as they shat on her.

      The world is such an interesting place. Grossman, never heard of again. Try to Google the name, none to be found. Bennett tried to hide it, but she got a nice pay-off on leaving MSD. Something very wrong happened, and again, the NZ government stuffed up big. But nobody pities that nasty bene thrasher to have gone. Now we need to get rid of Bennett and this Natzy government!
24. RedLogix 24

    9 January 2013 at 10:38 pm

    An insiders view on capitalism; Kathryn Ryan interviewing Satayajit Das

    Former trader who has spent 30 years working and writing about financial markets. He is the author of 16 books including ‘Traders, Guns & Money and Extreme Money’.

    Ex-Merril Lynch among others.
    • xtasy 24.1

      9 January 2013 at 10:55 pm

      A very interesting man that is!!!
25. xtasy 25

    9 January 2013 at 10:50 pm

    Of course there is the “market”, but the “market” has had to and did for long times follow some commonly accepted “market rules”, which was the “middle way” economic and social model followed for decades in much of Europe and elsewhere after the last great war.

    Also there have always been tradespersons and other professionals establishing their organisations representing their interests and rights, same as unions have done.

    If all follow the same rules, being fair enough and acceptable to workers and employers, same of course for consumers and retailers and service deliverers, we may one day get back to the fairer societies of a few decades ago.

    But that is not wanted by the ruling elite, and they have done a very thorough job to divide and rule. So many, yes the bulk of society have now been turned into suspecting, cowardly, envious competitors, they never want to trust each other anymore, so there you are, solidarity and fairness have been destroyed by grand desing by Friedman and co, the disciples like Reagan, Thatcher, others, and the new brigade like Key and even Shearer. So to change this, we need a total social breakdown, so more are poor and suffering, than the rest can excuse and allow (with police or army force).

    NZ is not there, I am afraid will NEVER be there, as it is so totally divided and brainwashed into ignorance, there is NO solidarity and unity anymore. Thanks also for wrongly designed migration.

    Those that will criticise me for the latter: Bear in mind, NZ Immigration and governments has for many years designed migration rules to encourage the better off, rich, upper middle class, better qualified and highly “competitive” (underpricing) migrants to come here from all sorts of countries, to undermine the previously common more egalitarian society.

    It was all wanted, designed and done. So wake up, learn your lessons and take bloody real action, but I fear, it is far too late, as very few will join you. Maybe wait for economic and social collapse. What a bloody prospect for the future. Another capitalist, anglo saxon society being shat on and destroyed for most living in it. Lies, lies, lies, and betrayal, it never ended, after the Treaty of Waitangi, and whatever came before or after it.
26. Alinsky 26

    10 January 2013 at 4:13 am

    The collapse is underway.

    Stage 1 is “the slope of hope.” People are frightened but cling to hope it can be avoided.
    Stage 2 is anger. People know the economy is crashing and b.s. like bailouts don’t work.

    Here in NZ many are in Stage 1 (Captain Mumblefuck, Key, MSM). The worse off and the insightful are in Stage 2.

    Many countries are now in Stage 2: Arab Spring, Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc. They know they are in a downward spiral. They are angry.

    This anger leads to structural changes. But sometimes those changes are not what you and I wish for (the rise of Hitler, the Russian revolution, more despotic dictatorships). This is why The Standard is essential. We are a core who can direct NZ toward changes akin to Mickey Savage and FDR’s New Deal.

    We are the voices for a fairer society.
27. kiwicommie 27

    10 January 2013 at 4:47 pm

    So in other words the business leaders of NZ are out of ideas. Their first idea is to try and find mythical Irish leprachuans with pots of gold, their second idea is to eliminate social welfare and crown John Key as Pharoah; with NZ workers as their slaves. Sounds like NZ businesses get all their economic thinking from Ayn Rand novels.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS