John Key’s plan to cut your pay

Written By: - Date published: 10:46 am, February 20th, 2008 - 144 comments
Categories: john key, national, tax, workers' rights - Tags: , , ,

keysmaller.jpg“We would love to see wages drop”. You would think that given the simmering debate about our wage gap with Australia at the moment that would be the last thing you’d expect to hear from the leader of the National Party. Especially when he’d gone on record in the national media just a week ago claiming under pressure that his party “will raise wages“.

But that’s exactly what John Key told the Kerikeri District Business Association in late December last year.

“We would love to see wages drop”

Think about what that means for a second.

For most people their wage is the only income they have to pay their mortgages or rent, to feed and clothe themselves and their kids and to make sure they can have some kind of a decent life – all the things most Kiwis need and want.

And John wants them to have less.

We’ve talked about the wage issue time and time again on this blog and how the National Party has no answers on how to raise wages. They seem only to want to talk about tax cuts, and I guess this explains why.

That Key would say this to an audience of employers and within two months try to tell the New Zealand public the complete opposite is a disgraceful act of dishonesty, and it shows his real attitude to working New Zealanders.

Disdain.

I’m starting to understand how Key can claim his tax cuts wouldn’t be inflationary – his plan is to take them out of our wages.

wages_drop.gif

UPDATE: Around the blogs Jordan Carter, No Right Turn, SproutBean and Kiwiblogblog have all weighed in. Scoop has press releases from Labour and the EPMU

UPDATE 2: The Council of Trade Unions has entered the fray, challenging Key to come clean on wages.

144 comments on “John Key’s plan to cut your pay ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Steve Pierson 1
    20 February 2008 at 10:55 am

    This is outragous!

    All that bullshit about the wage gap, about getting wages up, and we find out that he actually wants wages down!

    All those families on the edge, struggling to get by, he wants them poorer.

    I can’t believe it, I knew they were bad but it’s amazing they would go that far.

    National wants to cut our pay.

  2. the sprout 2
    20 February 2008 at 11:04 am

    increasing the unemployment rate should achieve John’s nirvana of lower NZ wages

  3. Robinsod 3
    20 February 2008 at 11:10 am

    Don’t forget cutting benefits and freezing the minimum wage, Sprout.

  4. Benodic 4
    20 February 2008 at 11:13 am

    What a disgrace. Just goes to show how hollow National’s tax cut plan is after all. I expect the mainstream media drop the dying Owen Glenn scandalette and pick up on this blatant example of dishonesty and hypocrisy from John Key.

    Judging by the lack of pickup so far I guess half-baked scandal trumps substance any day of the week in New Zealand’s fearless mainstream media.

  5. Benodic 5
    20 February 2008 at 11:14 am

    There’s supposed to be a [chortle] in there somewhere to indicate sarcasm but the system didn’t like my triangular brackets.

  6. g 6
    20 February 2008 at 11:18 am

    Why do you people at the standard consistantly take a few words out of context and proceed to use that as basis for outright attack on that person.

  7. Ex Labour Voter 7
    20 February 2008 at 11:18 am

    What a coincidence! Labour, the EPMU, and the Standard simultaneously release a press release, about the same obscure article in a tiny provincial newspaper, published three months ago!

    And they’ve all deliberately, selectively, chosen to misquote John Key.

    His point was pretty clear. The way for wages to increase is by increasing productivity. Not by allowing union to extort employers because of over-heat in the labour market, caused by the brain drain that Labour is doing nothing to stop.

  8. outofbed 8
    20 February 2008 at 11:18 am

    disgraceful
    But credit to the man he did finally say what he truly believes in
    That’s all I really ask

    So two definites then
    higher costs for gp visits
    and lower wages.
    anything else ?

  9. Sam Dixon 9
    20 February 2008 at 11:19 am

    This is beyond the pale from Key. His comments are a disgrace.

    I want to say he should resign but in fact he is jsut speakign the truth of Natioanl’s intentions, he has done nothing that would warrant sacking by National except being caught tellign the truth.

    Now, we know for sure that National plans to make oridnary jokers worse off and put more porfits in the pockets of their big business mates. Who in their right mind would vote for that?

  10. Sam Dixon 10
    20 February 2008 at 11:20 am

    g – what is out of context about thse words “we would love wages to drop”?

    Pray explain how they could be contextualised in any other way than that National wants wages to drop.

  11. Benodic 11
    20 February 2008 at 11:22 am

    OMG! EWS in unions and Labour party care about wages shock!

    See, I just had a look and the Labour release hit the newswires yesterday at 5.30pm so it’s hardly breaking news. Even on the blogs No Right Turn and Just Left both beat the standard to the story with posts last night. Good effort at midirection EWS but what do you think about John Key’s plan to cut your pay?

  12. Steve Pierson 12
    20 February 2008 at 11:23 am

    ELV. Ther is no misquote here: Key says they would love to see wages drop.

    He also says productivity should go up (as does every single other party), but the fruits of that increaed productivity would not go to ordinary kiwis under National. We would be worked harder and get less pay.

    Do you seriously want a pay cut?

  13. g 13
    20 February 2008 at 11:27 am

    Sam – Do you have the original notes from the author of the article? … Um no.

    I think we can safely assume the entire sentence was not just “We would love to see wages drop”, but that was what the author chose to publish, why? Because he clearly wanted to influence the public perception of John Key.

    The media in NZ are often shallow and only publish what they want to just to prove their point of view.

  14. Tane 14
    20 February 2008 at 11:27 am

    Why do you people at the standard consistantly take a few words out of context and proceed to use that as basis for outright attack on that person.

    There’s no lack of context g. If you click on the pull-out quote you’ll find a link to the full story:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/wages-drop-800.jpg

    John Key wants to cut our wages. In fact, he’s said he’d love to. How does that square with his comments to the media, and why’s he telling business one thing and the New Zealand public another?

  15. Sam Dixon 15
    20 February 2008 at 11:33 am

    g – what a perposterius position that is. Without any evidence at all, you assume the journalist just made it up.

    The fact is National wants your ages to fall, their leader has said as much. Are you going to vote for a pay cut?

  16. Robinsod 16
    20 February 2008 at 11:38 am

    Sam – Do you have the original notes from the author of the article? Um no.

    Fuck that’s desperate – do we have the original notes for the Glenn interview? Of course not and only a desperate fool would try to claim that made a difference. I suggest “g” that you give up now before you make yourself look anymore stupid. Key has ‘fessed up about his real intentions. Suck it up. Oh and remember: a vote for National is a vote to cut your pay. At least the smarmy bastard has finally admitted it…

  17. the sprout 17
    20 February 2008 at 11:38 am

    but John Key is such a nice man. and so rich.
    i’m sure a wage cut from National will be swell!

  18. Matthew Pilott 18
    20 February 2008 at 11:38 am

    What a surprise. I’d like to contribute that it seems Key is happy for us to get tax cuts, as long as they go to businesses and his rich mates.

    Hey guys, cheer up – sounds like we’re getting some policy, right?

    When will the 90 day bill, reduction/abolition of minimum wages and saleable annual leave policies be announced (it shouldn’t be hard, they printed it all up in 2005 didn’t they?)

  19. Sam Dixon 19
    20 February 2008 at 11:39 am

    Hands up who wants a wage cut?

    Who will be voting for National and their policy of gutting your wages?

  20. Glenn 20
    20 February 2008 at 11:43 am

    Wow, the Bay Report Whangarei, which refers to the National Party Leader as “My Keys’ in the second column. Hardly Woodward & Bernstein. The reporting is contradictory and poor, and most likely in error. But anything to deflect from the Owen Glenn scandal, right?

  21. Robinsod 21
    20 February 2008 at 11:43 am

    Oh, I’m paid far too much so are my neighbours – I noticed they bought a second-hand trampoline for their kids the other day – ostentatious bastards, they’ve got far too much discretionary income…

  22. Tane 22
    20 February 2008 at 11:44 am

    Those constant attacks on the wages of civil servants are finally starting to make some sense eh?

  23. g 23
    20 February 2008 at 11:44 am

    I never said he made it up. You just showed exactly what I was trying to explain. Extract 6 or 7 words from any book, article etc and you can easily find something which looks like it doesn’t fit, because it is taken out of context.

  24. Robinsod 24
    20 February 2008 at 11:46 am

    Hey Glenn – I’m sure National can clear this up but at the moment, as Mr. Key said about the Glenn case on morning report today, It’s murky at best… Nah, he said it alright.

  25. Sam Dixon 25
    20 February 2008 at 11:48 am

    g – The sentence is “we would love to see wages drop”, give it to me in a context that doesn’t mean “we would love to see wages drop”

  26. the sprout 26
    20 February 2008 at 11:49 am

    “ostentatious bastards, they’ve got far too much discretionary income”

    too bloody right mate – i mean who needs more stuff? they’re just being greedy.

    a gin palace at Orewa and another half dozen properties around the country, in addition to the Parnell mansion, should be anough for anybody.

  27. Steve Pierson 27
    20 February 2008 at 11:51 am

    Glenn. These attempts to discredit the report are very weak. Key said “we would love to see wages drop”, that is that.

    Now, if you are for wages dropping, be a man just say so, don’t make baseless smears on the journalist.

  28. Tane 28
    20 February 2008 at 11:52 am

    Okay G. John Key was talking to a business audience concerned about the call for higher wages (no employer likes having to pay their staff more) and he reassured them he was going to help them out with their ‘labour costs’, as National calls our wages.

    From the article:

    Another point raised by Ms Brookes-Quan concerned the exodus to Australia by New Zealanders, lured by attractive wage compensation, and the recent call for employers to pay more.

    Mr Key would like to see the opposite occur.

    “We would love to see wages drop,” he says.

    It’s common for politicians to let things slip in provincial papers when they think no one’s listening. Remember the Iraq war fiasco? That was reported in the Rodney Times of all places.

    What I’m left wondering is how much Ms Brookes-Quan and her fellow employers gave National in secret donations last election? What did they get in exchange and how will we ever know?

  29. Stef 29
    20 February 2008 at 11:53 am

    I suspect that the wage drops would only be in certain areas and achieved through higher umemployment.

  30. Robinsod 30
    20 February 2008 at 11:56 am

    I suspect that the wage drops would only be in certain areas and achieved through higher umemployment.

    So probably just vulnerable workers like cleaners, aged care workers, factory workers, young workers etc?

    I guess there’s nothing to worry about then.

  31. James Kearney 31
    20 February 2008 at 11:58 am

    All that bullshit about the wage gap, about getting wages up, and we find out that he actually wants wages down!

    Have to agree with you there Steve. And the worst thing of all is we know it’s not his wages or his mates’ wages he wants to cut, because they’re the kind of people who get investment income or employ staff and stand to gain from wage cuts. It’s the wages of ordinary New Zealanders like you and me he’s after and that’s disgusting.

  32. g 32
    20 February 2008 at 11:59 am

    Sam – Which wages? Drop in comparision to what?

    E.g. If he was taking about specific industries, e.g. Technology changes can remove the need for some human processing in some industries. This would in turn reduce the wage bill for those employers (a drop in wages, after a capital cost for the change), which may also reduce the production cost, which would reduce the cost that consumers have to pay for that product.

  34. James Kearney 34
    20 February 2008 at 12:03 pm

    g- Key said he “wages”, not “wage costs” to go down. You need to try harder.

  35. Robinsod 35
    20 February 2008 at 12:03 pm

    Have you noticed, g, how noone else is trying to defend this. It’s ‘cos Key’s been thoroughly caught out here. Keep trying though – it’s very entertaining.

  36. Dancer 36
    20 February 2008 at 12:06 pm

    For those who may try and portray this comment as a “one off” the overall direction is confirmed by things he’s said previously – he just hasn’t been quite so blunt (maybe this is why we are all taken aback – we’re not used to such straight talking from Mr Key! but then i guess he was addressing a group of fellow business people).

    For example: Key is an advocate of flexible labour markets and says under National expect “quite significant’ changes to the Employment Relations Act.
    He reckons there was nothing wrong with employment legislation – the Employment Contracts Act – as it was when National left office in 1999.’ The Independent 8 September 2004

  37. merl 37
    20 February 2008 at 12:07 pm

    I agre with all the outrage above. Although it’s not a shock so I’m not really that surprised.

    Sorry to be a pedant, but it’s ‘disdain’, not ‘distain’

  38. Matthew Pilott 38
    20 February 2008 at 12:07 pm

    Na I’m with g on this – when he says wages, how do we know he means “wages” in the income sense.

    I think he means “wages” as in “wages war”.

    He actually wants peace. God bless you, John Key.

    Is that the “context” you’re after, g? I could have more fun spinning it if you wish, but at the end of the dsy, I’ll still be talking out my arse 😉

  39. slightlyrighty 39
    20 February 2008 at 12:10 pm

    Again a typical ploy from the left who take one statement out of context and assume that this is the thinking of John Key.

    Read the whole article. Your headline is misleading. A headline that more accurately reflects the thinking of the article would be “Key’s plan to improve productivity, and living standards.”

    Labour wants to increase wages without regard to the capacity of industry to sustain them. What John Key is saying is that is not how wage rises should occur.

    If you bother to read the article, John Key is saying improved productivity leads to higher wages and that is how it should proceed.

  40. Idiot/Savant 40
    20 February 2008 at 12:12 pm

    See, I just had a look and the Labour release hit the newswires yesterday at 5.30pm so it’s hardly breaking news. Even on the blogs No Right Turn and Just Left both beat the standard to the story with posts last night.

    Michael Cullen dropped it in Parliament at the end of the commencement debate around 16:20, and I to wait for his press release.

  41. Daveo 41
    20 February 2008 at 12:30 pm

    John Key’s been saying this kinda thing for a while, like in 2004 when he attacked unionism in parliament, said he wanted to scrap the Employment Relations Act and said employers should be abble to pressure workers not to join a union. Dancer is right – there’s heaps more where this came from.

  42. Tim 42
    20 February 2008 at 12:36 pm

    This is not a one-off statement, nor is it taken out of context. National’s employment policies attack workers. It has no concrete policy on how to increase wages. Its agenda is the reverse.

    National’s “answer” is tax cuts. This will do nothing for workers. If you’re earning $12 an hour a tax cut is not a huge amount of money. A tax cut for workers will give them next to nothing while cutting the public services they rely on (and pay for through their taxes). Businesses and employers have the most to gain from tax cuts, not workers.

    Let’s not forget that it was National that encouraged the low wage and low investment employment landscape of the 1990s, the legacy of which remains. New Zealand competed by having very low wages. This did not encourage investment in training or technology and it did not increase workers’ skills or productivity. National is responsible for the vast gap in wages with Australia that it now purports to want to remedy.

    National’s talk about supporting productivity is meaningless unless mechanisms are in place to ensure that workers get a fair share of increased productivity. National still opposes the 2004 amendments to the Employment Relations Act 2000. It is clear that it opposes collective bargaining and laws to prevent exploitation of vulnerable workers in contracting out situations.

    National and its employment spokesperson Kate Wilkinson should drop the veneer of concern for workers. The damage to our social fabric caused by poverty wages is too important to ignore, and workers need to know the truth from National.

  43. Daveo 43
    20 February 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Well put Tim.

  44. Phil 44
    20 February 2008 at 12:40 pm

    Hey Sod, some of us on Jonkeys side of the argument just have more productive things to do with our time…

    Anyway, as I see it here, we have a combination of three things.
    One; an off the cuff response to a question that was worded poorly
    Two; a Journalist who sees some mileage in the quote
    Three; IB getting wet and randy over something else top try to pin on Key

    If you read the rest of the article, John’s talking about increases in productivity. I think it is fairly apparent that what he means is that wages, as a percentage of employer costs, should come down.

    Leaving aside the fact that ‘wages’ as a cost to employers are NOT the same thing as ‘wages’ in your pocket, I think what he’s getting at is that businesses must take steps to improve productivity in such a way that they have ample reasources to reward employees once the benefit of capital spending and investment has made it’s way through their production process.

  45. outofbed 45
    20 February 2008 at 12:40 pm

    yes well put tim

  46. the sprout 46
    20 February 2008 at 12:43 pm

    Tim, you’ll never get a job in the msm saying stuff like that

  47. the sprout 47
    20 February 2008 at 12:44 pm

    Phil, thanks for the handy “contextualization”.
    did you do “the war in Iraq is over” too?

  48. outofbed 48
    20 February 2008 at 12:50 pm

    Key’s plan to cut wages is probably one of the reasons that K Rich left

  49. Matthew Pilott 49
    20 February 2008 at 12:50 pm

    Phil, and slightlyrighty,

    I’ll put it to you that if this idea is so fantastic, why hasn’t Key been shouting it from the rooftops?

    Why has he been either (at best) deliberately misprepresenting his position or blattantly lying about his intentions?

    Fact is, he has no answers to th eproblems laid out there, or his solution isn’t one that he considers fit for general consumption.

    Anyway, Phil, as his official spokesperson, what did he mean to say, instead of “We would love to see wages drop”? Maybe get him to give me a call, cheers.

    I also detect a little underpants gnome in there – cut wages, ??, and raise productivity.

  50. Robinsod 50
    20 February 2008 at 12:51 pm

    three; IB getting wet and randy

    Hey Phil – you’re KBR is showing.

  51. Matthew Pilott 51
    20 February 2008 at 12:55 pm

    ‘sod: “your”. Funny though 🙂

  52. Robinsod 52
    20 February 2008 at 12:59 pm

    Jeez – I didn’t get much sleep last night…

  53. Daveo 53
    20 February 2008 at 1:06 pm

    Too busy blowing goats aye Sod? 🙂 No need to worry, your goat-blowing days will be over when John Key has you working double shifts to pay your mortgage.

  54. AncientGeek 54
    20 February 2008 at 1:16 pm

    I think what he’s getting at is that businesses must take steps to improve productivity in such a way that they have ample reasources to reward employees once the benefit of capital spending and investment has made it’s way through their production

    phil: I have no problems with all of that. IMHO employers have been dragging the chain on increasing productivity. It invariably requires capital investments that haven’t been that noticeable in the last couple of decades. It has been cheaper to get cheap labour. Consequently our productivity rate rises have been minimal.

    The best thing that employers could have happen to them is to enter a tight labour market. There is finally an incentive for them to get off their arse and get real productivity increases.

    cap: the Corporate

  55. Bart 55
    20 February 2008 at 1:33 pm

    Ahh, the policies of the soundbite.

    Having read the whole article, what John Key has actually said was that a wage rise simply for the sake of a wage rise is counterproductive. What he would like to see is more competitiveness with Australian wages that have come about with a combination of tax cuts, and wage rises linked to increased productivity which has come about as a result of infrastructure investment. And what, may I ask, is so wrong with that.

    But of course, you lot simply take one line from the speech, quote it out of context, and make no effort to quantify the very reasonable statements on infrastructure investment.

    Shame on you!

  56. Steve Pierson 56
    20 February 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Bart. Key says “we would love to see wages drop”. He also says that increasing productivity would be good but that’s nothing new or surprising, every party says that. Not every party says “we would love for wages to drop”.

    The big question now, for those trying to defend Key’s statement is how much of a pay cut are you willing to take under a National government?

    captcha: Public Tingling, I think they’ll be more than tingling after they see this on the news tonight.

  57. insider 57
    20 February 2008 at 1:39 pm

    SO none of you have ever missed a word in saying something so it doesn’t come out we meant.

    I mean, you seem to have missed the fundamental contradiction of the phrase you are so loving with his immediately following statement: “the way we want to see wages increase is…”

    As a former sub editor and journalist, it leapt out at me and my instant reaction was – “there;re some words missing in the quote, otherwise it makes no sense whatsoever (ignoring whether the sentiment fits your preset agenda).”

    It was likely the word “gap” between the words ‘wages’ and ‘drop’ was missed either by Key or by the reporter – probably the former given the extensive quotes used by the reporter (that said given s/he is irregular in the spelling of both the people quoted, I’m not sure I’d pin all my faith on that). Insert that word and there is clarity.

    ALways consider cock up theory before conspiracy theory.

  58. the sprout 58
    20 February 2008 at 1:39 pm

    tinkling more like, as National pisses more votes down the toilet

    keep opening your mouth John

  59. the sprout 59
    20 February 2008 at 1:41 pm

    no doubt about Key and cock-ups Phil

    Key: “under a Labour government I lead…”

  60. r0b 60
    20 February 2008 at 1:42 pm

    But of course, you lot simply take one line from the speech, quote it out of context

    Begging your pardon there Bart, but the post references an image of the entire article as printed in the newspaper. You can’t supply much more context than that!

    and make no effort to quantify the very reasonable statements on infrastructure investment.

    Quantify them? Could you please show us how that’s done Bart? Serious question, not at all sure what you mean here.

    Shame on you!

    And for supporting a call to lower wages, honour and glory to you do you think? Some might disagree…

  61. Tane 61
    20 February 2008 at 1:43 pm

    ALways consider cock up theory before conspiracy theory.

    Because that’s what National and the media are doing with the Williams/Glenn fiasco right?

  62. Steve Pierson 62
    20 February 2008 at 1:48 pm

    I don’t buy this nonsense about a word missing from the quote. They’ve selected it and put it in bold, they would have checked they had the words right.

    In the next paragraph after the quote, Key talks about tackling wage inflation, which is tory speak for wage rises.

  63. Robinsod 63
    20 February 2008 at 1:51 pm

    I’d say (also as a former sub) that a quote of this significance (especially when used as a pullout would have been checked). I’d also say that National would have had this article come through their clippings service and would have flagged it for a retraction or would have been organised to point out as soon as it came up that it was a misquote. They’ve also had 18 hours to respond (what would be a better deflation of the story than – “simple, I was misquoted”) and haven’t done so.

  64. r0b 64
    20 February 2008 at 1:52 pm

    I don’t buy this nonsense about a word missing form the quote. They’ve selected it and put it in bold, they would have chekced they had the words right

    Quite apart from the fact that Key would have screamed blue murder if an error of that magnitude had occurred.

  65. Draco TB 65
    20 February 2008 at 1:52 pm

    OMG, National proving that it hasn’t changed it’s spots since the 1990s. It still wants mass unemployment, low wages and extreme poverty – who’d ha’ thunk it.

  66. Robinsod 66
    20 February 2008 at 1:55 pm

    Yeah DTB – I was also stunned. I thought they were a party of the centre.

  67. insider 67
    20 February 2008 at 2:01 pm

    Sprout just gave another good example of one of Key’s misspeaks. And face it, he is not a great orator, to be blunt. Not exactly bushlike but certainly not a Blair or Cullen. I suspect he accidentally left the word out as he responded to a question. (look how many times people have mistyped or misused a word in this thread – it happens).

    Journalistically speaking, if the quote deserves the weight you place on it I have to wonder why that wasn’t the lead of the story – the reporter missed a massive scoop surely, which does call into question his/her reporting skills. So perhaps in context it was not quite the issue being imagined here.

    The next bit was that he wanted to see wage inflation not automatically echo the economy’s inflation but be built on productivity gains.

    So it is a nice little thing to chuck jibes at him about, but it is a bit much to see this as a major polciy announcement or sinister revelation of a hidden agenda.

    If that’s the best you can do, you haven’t got much.

  68. mike 68
    20 February 2008 at 2:05 pm

    “captcha: Public Tingling, I think they’ll be more than tingling after they see this on the news tonight.”

    This is not newsworthy, if it was stuff or NZ would have picked it up not just left blogs looking for a distraction from ‘Glengate’
    The 6 o’clock news will focus on the sad state of our killer hospitals etc etc..

  69. insider 69
    20 February 2008 at 2:09 pm

    Robinsod

    The pullout is a good point, but I would look at the quality of the newspaper – it is not in the first class. If you have ever dealt with these community papers they are a bit hit and miss – staff are often very young or lack training. See the spellings of the names, the sub didn;t even pick that up so I wouldn’t rate his/her skills and s/he probably processed the copy as written without asking too many questions.

    In terms of clipping services, you could also ask why it was being sat on by Labour. In my experience these community papers take a long time to come through. I suspect the nats haven’t put out a clarification because the story has no legs.

  70. Robinsod 70
    20 February 2008 at 2:15 pm

    Hey Mike – I kinda agree with you but I would say it has the potential to grow over the next few days (as the Key DVD story did). “Glengate” please tell me you didn’t make that up? ‘Cos if you did bro you should stick to your day job.

    Insider – As you know, journalists (especially regional journalists) often don’t realise the story they have. The angle often makes the story. As for the policy stuff? They’ve not released employment policy and they won’t because it shows them for what they are. In fact National has a habit of keeping their less appealing policies quiet – at least once at the request of their private backers.

  71. insider 71
    20 February 2008 at 2:44 pm

    Rob I still think the leader of National wanting lower wages should stick out like a sore thumb no matter where you live. Maybe I’m too conscious of politics.

  72. Robinsod 72
    20 February 2008 at 2:58 pm

    Bro – I’ve seen young journos completely miss the killer question and push the oddest things to the top in my time. And unfortunately it’s not only the noobs these days – a classic example of this was pointed out by Irish on this site a while ago in relation to the Shadbolt campaign. I was amazed that he got coverage for two weeks before anyone actually asked where the money for the campaign was coming from!

  73. the sprout 73
    20 February 2008 at 3:02 pm

    true, true. and then there’s the angle the editor has already decided to run

  74. insider 74
    20 February 2008 at 3:14 pm

    It was all so much better in our day….

  75. the sprout 75
    20 February 2008 at 3:18 pm

    hehe

  76. Bart 76
    20 February 2008 at 3:41 pm

    Oh pay attention Rob. Wage increases simply to catch up to another economy are ultimately inflationary, and will do little to increase the standard of living in this country. Wage increases must go hand in hand with productivity to be sustanable. Productivity increaases when the tax burden is reduced for both employers and employees.

    If we increase wages without productivity increases, the relative cost to employers of wages increases. employers myst then look to reduce costs, be it by delaying the purchase of additional infrastructure, raising prices, or outsourcing to a cheaper labour market. Using a softer approach, ensuring wage rises increase along with productivity, adjusting tax brackets, and allowing the worker to more fairly reap the rewrads of his or her labour is a sound policy, which all of you are missing because John Key used a phrase which I am sure he wishes he hadn’t. Now you are all over him because he spoke the truth, the literal economic truth.

    meanwhile, Michael cullen taxes our economy in to oblivion and wastes years of global economic growth!

    At least under John Keys stated policy goals, I have a chance of a reduced mortgage rate!

  77. Steve Pierson 77
    20 February 2008 at 3:42 pm

    Bart. Will your reduced wage pay for your supposedly reduced mortgage?

  78. AncientGeek 78
    20 February 2008 at 3:59 pm

    insider:

    ALways consider cock up theory before conspiracy theory.

    Sounds right – pity the tories never follow that principle. Like these attacks on Mike Williams about a ‘donation’.

    cap: then surpluses

  79. r0b 79
    20 February 2008 at 4:02 pm

    Bart: Oh pay attention Rob.

    Sure thing Bart. I read your post three times. I paid attention like anything. And yet I can’t see anything in your post which provides any other interpretation of Key’s statement: “We would love to see wages drop’.

    You did mention “outsourcing to a cheaper labour market”. Is that what Key had in mind do you think?

    Now you are all over him because he spoke the truth, the literal economic truth.

    And The Standard is reporting his words on this literal economic truth. So, what exactly are you objecting to?

  80. Matthew Pilott 80
    20 February 2008 at 4:33 pm

    Ah, finally someone says it like it is.

    Bart, I think the gist of what you’re saying is that all those people on an inflated wage (the minimum wage and lower income people with strong unions) are getting too much money.

    This is inflationary, and causes trouble for those wealthy folks trying to pay off their mortgage on their third and fourth investment properties.

    Cripple the unions, and bust the minimum wage, and National can reduce interest rates that will really benefit the wealthy.

    At least you’re honest enough to take Key’s words for what they mean – that decent wages for the poor can (sometimes, under specific market conditions) be inflationary and this is an economic truth.

  81. Bart 81
    20 February 2008 at 11:27 pm

    And how come none of you are reporting this statement from John Key.

    “The way we want to see wages increase is because productivity is greater. So people can afford more. Not just for inflationary reasons, otherwise it’s a bit of a viscious circle as it comes back at you in higher interest rates.”

    Now where is this statement to be found?

    In the same bloody article you are quoting John Key from at the start of this thread.

    I am not asking you to beleive, just to think!

  82. Robinsod 82
    20 February 2008 at 11:38 pm

    Um, that’s in the linked PDF in this article. And he’s tried to use the productivity argument elsewhere. Guess what? He’s never explain anything of it. In fact I think the “we would love to see wages drop” argument is the most concrete thing I think I’ve ever heard him say.

  83. r0b 83
    21 February 2008 at 12:42 am

    OK Bart, I’m a bear of very little brain, and long words bother me. When Key says – “The way we want to see wages increase is because productivity is greater. So people can afford more.” – then I translate this as follows – “It will be just as good as a wage increase if workers make more stuff and there is more and cheaper stuff to buy”.

    Sounds like nonsense to me. I’ll take a real wage increase please.

    So what’s your interpretation of Key’s words? In nice simple language please explain the above statement from Key, and how it proves that Key doesn’t actually mean it when he says “We would love to see wages drop’.

  84. AncientGeek 84
    21 February 2008 at 2:11 am

    Bart: Generally raising productivity in a firm is a mid to long term objective once the simple easy and cheap stuff has been done. In most cases that should have already been done. (And if it hasn’t then there are employers who should go to the wall).

    The longer term productivity increases done by government funded infrastructure, or industry, take significant capital to get started.

    In industry they have ROI’s EBDIC’s etc that usually take 5 years to reap returns. Thats why industry hasn’t done them previously, it has always been cheaper to hire people.

    In government that take 10 years because most of the easier stuff has already been done. Planning permissions aren’t a significant problem. Planning, capital, workforce, and the technical problems usually are.

    The last 8 years of Labour lead governments have been building the infrastructure. There has been more infrastructure built in the last 8 years, and more underway than there has been for 30 years.

    Neither the Nats or Key have any track record in saying what they will do, and then doing it.

    As an investor in NZ via my taxes, I’d want to know what their plans are. Simply taking a line of bullshit from a corporate pirate simply isn’t good enough. To date that is all that I’ve heard from that Nats or Key – bullshit and waffle.

  85. Santi 85
    21 February 2008 at 6:53 am

    “National wants to cut our pay” said S. Pierson.

    That’s an outrageous lie and you know it.

    Stop being economical with the truth and concentrate on the substance of this issue. Or is it your union background that prevents you from speaking the truth?

  86. Robinsod 86
    21 February 2008 at 7:32 am

    Stop being economical with the truth and concentrate on the substance of this issue

    This from a troll like you Santi??? What a hoot – I don’t think I’ve ever seen you comment on the “substance” of anything.

  87. Matthew Pilott 87
    21 February 2008 at 9:30 am

    You have to wonder why he bothers eh ‘sod?

    Santi, if you want to focus on issues, there are other posts concerning the issue of tax cuts vs productivity. I believe The Standard has mentioned that the latter is more important.

    The difference is Key saying he’d prefer that wages are reduced before this happens.

    Is it your troll background that prevents you from saying anything intelligent? Oh…yes it is.

  88. the sprout 88
    21 February 2008 at 9:39 am

    how did Hone Harawera describe Key?
    a “smiling snake” i believe it was.

  89. Horisthebear 89
    22 February 2008 at 10:48 am

    I have a solution to this selective propaganda debate from your guys.

    Lets call a snap Election and let the people decide and see who believes who…

  90. outofbed 90
    22 February 2008 at 10:58 am

    I love it when the rwnj call for a snap election
    translates to :- I don’t think Key can hold out being economical with the truth for too much longer

  91. Horisthebear 91
    22 February 2008 at 12:12 pm

    Ha! I guess you must think that things for Labour can get better from here? The last week will be worth another 5-10pts away from Labour in the next poll. The longer she leaves it the better for us.

  92. boristhespider 92
    22 February 2008 at 12:22 pm

    we’ll see Horis we’ll see

    captcha = suddenly french
    another false dawn eh ?

  93. burt 93
    23 February 2008 at 1:43 pm

    Horisthebear

    You were correct…

  94. John 94
    24 February 2008 at 9:13 pm

    How’s the Labour fundraising going at the walk for life cancer fundraiser …… really Labour tsk tsk what are you payong your PR advisors for ?

  95. pat 95
    1 April 2008 at 8:17 pm

    What about Helen Clark’s plan to cut our wages? The Free Trade Agreement with Communist China.

  96. Lampie 96
    7 April 2008 at 5:21 pm

    some need to read closer, Key is meaning (hopefully hasn’t already been mentioned) wages to drop under Labour to prove his point of wages adjusted to inflation instead of real growth. Also means he admits that there has been icrease in wages too otherwise he wouldn’t mention he would like them to drop.

Links to post