Law firm sets out business wish list

97 comments on “Law firm sets out business wish list ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Uturn 1

   1 December 2011 at 7:25 am

   It’s almost as if employers don’t want to have employees. Yes, I think that’s it. So those that can should leave work that is under destructive employer regimes and those that can’t will fight back in any way they know how. If those employees are not voting or joining unions, they’ve already chosen to fight. The business community aren’t very bright if they think people will go quietly into slavery. Sitting there all smug and well fed and attacking their people’s ability to eat. Do they honestly believe it won’t spill over into their private lives? That they’ll just walk away each night and go home to nice comfortable suburbia and not be followed? Wake up employers. You are just people and there are more workers than you. You get your money and your power through co-operation with the people you employ. If you do not recognise that, continue to dismiss reason and engagement, and continue to push for slavery, you’ll get everything you deserve.
   • Lanthanide 1.1

     1 December 2011 at 9:51 am

     No, employers want employees. They just want those employees to be robots, not humans.

     As we can’t yet create cheap robots on par with human labour, they’re trying to whittle away employees rights so they are little more than the capital in their business – able to be used, abused, depreciated and eventually ‘disposed of’.
   • Rob A 1.2

     1 December 2011 at 10:57 am

     “The business community aren’t very bright if they think people will go quietly into slavery”

     Really? Were you paying attention last weekend?
     • Uturn 1.2.1

       1 December 2011 at 11:06 am

       Don’t understand your point.

       Are you saying you have mandate to enslave because National were elected or because people haven’t physically grasped you by the neck yet?

       Or are you saying you want to be enslaved because you voted National or because other people voted National you are willing to be a slave?

       Either way, you say National are the party for slavery. Good for you, not many would admit it.
       • Rob A 1.2.1.1

         1 December 2011 at 11:59 am

         Whats this “you” shit?

         I have little faith in humanity, it seems the majority are more than happy to go quiet into that dark night.

         Look at whats happened to the Unions over the last 20 odd years, look at whats happening right now re the climate, look how workers rights have been getting eroded more and more. Look how confident some law firm is that they can actually make public what in the past would have been boardroom chatter.

         And what’s the answer? Gee lets pitch some tents on Wall st or Aotea square

         No, I have little faith
         • vto 1.2.1.1.1

           1 December 2011 at 12:07 pm

           Rob A you make a good point here ” Look how confident some law firm is that they can actually make public what in the past would have been boardroom chatter.”

           Indeed it is an indicator of the way things are, relative to NZ’s history. It is a worrying sign.
           • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1.1.1

             1 December 2011 at 12:21 pm

             They’re brave because the masses haven’t started coming out with pitchforks, torches or guillotines again, or putting bricks through their plate glass windows.
             • Vicky32 …

               1 December 2011 at 6:46 pm

               They’re brave because the masses haven’t started coming out with pitchforks, torches or guillotines again, or putting bricks through their plate glass windows.

               Unfortunately, as I told one of my Saudi students when he asked, I don’t believe New Zealanders will ever do such things. Bah-ah-ah! They’re not known as sheep for nothing…
               One of my Italian friends reminisced once about joyfully jumping on cars in the 1968 student protests… I was filled with envy! I am a bit younger than him, and I caught hell for a letter to the newspaper, and my father was told by his NZ friends to “keep your daughter under control”. 
               Because it’s not seemly or right in New Zealand, to feel strongly about anything! (I was even unfriended on Facebook for it. Thanks a bundle Frank.)
               • vto …

                 1 December 2011 at 8:33 pm

                 That may be the perception but it aint the history.

                 A person wuld be a fool to think that that part of the human condition is somehow absent in our beautiful isles. Unfortunately.
         • Uturn 1.2.1.1.2

           1 December 2011 at 12:08 pm

           The “you” shit is because it is all about you. Whoever you are. Will any of you go quietly into that dark night? What will you do? Will you join the 350,000 other “you” in Unions? Will you stand up for yours and others rights and call them when your boss tries the same immoral enslavement at your work place? What will you do? Cry? Moan? Hide? Say it’s not worth the effort? And then slowly fade away? Will you act and pay the price?

           Get UP! Say NO. Start living the reality that is life. Stop waiting for the goodness of your overlord’s heart to kick in. Stop behaving like children waiting for mum. No one is coming, you are already here and you can do it yourself.
           • Rob A 1.2.1.1.2.1

             1 December 2011 at 3:17 pm

             Whatever….anybody with half a braincell could pick where your post was coming from

             But nice rhetoric, shame you ruined it all at the start by waving your arms in the air while chanting “the people will riiiiiiiiiissssssssssseeeee”
             • Uturn …

               1 December 2011 at 6:05 pm

               So you’re a coward. Good for you. Let other people protect your interests.
     • the pink postman 1.2.2

       1 December 2011 at 4:26 pm

       You are dead right Rob . . Im still angry and disgusted at the turn out. Perhaps we should tell these workers that they deserve everythiing the are going to get, I listen to farmers in my Town and they are with out exception completly anti worker .who think the mininum wage is much to high ,and I still hear the old slur “That it does the working man a bit good to tighten his belt” They still say it here in 2011 . They, like their business friends, dodge paying tax and are in favour of crushing employment conditions. Yet a large number of working people who suffer and will suffer more under these bosses still either vote for these peoples mates . They do not get off their arse to change their lives for the better . I despair and am sad about the whole shambles
2. vto 2

   1 December 2011 at 7:29 am

   ha ha it always amuses me when people and organisations consider themselves to be something they are not.

   I thought Chapman Tripp was a law firm? Lawyers are generally absolutely hopeless at business. Perhaps the great and wise at Chapman Tripp could outline their experience at ownership and operation of businesses, with examples provided – then again, perhaps they do own and run a dairy or two, or perhaps have dreamed up, designed, manufactured and successfully sold something useful to society, or maybe even their solicitors get out there in their lunch hours running their courier company ……

   ha ha, they need to be added to the list of organisation to ignore.
   • aerobubble 2.1

     1 December 2011 at 9:11 am

     A council lawyers has argued that since the public square is incapable of handling protests that the current protest should desist.
     I was staggered. How can it be that free expression can be denied because of the council car park roof integrity guzumps free expression.
     Do we as a society really believe that a council utility can be used to deny free expression, as effective as any barrier?
     Do we really as a society believe that a protester on a lawn should worry that the lawn would not regrow, or would be prohibitive to regrow, does the council gardens manager comes from ethiopia?
     Do we really want a council, or any governing body, designing public spaces to frustrate free speach by making the cost of handling a protest (that thoughout time was without such excessive costs)?
     It seems so, so please check yourself when you make any claim that we live in a free democratic state, we don’t, we live in a no protests on the grass state frustrate free expression society.
     Civil rights in NZ, what civil rights? Without access to the civic square? When protestors are ‘moved’ on based on the argument that council fail in its duty to provide an adequate public square.
     Public squares are used by the public as places of protest, and have a right to access this place historical, no longer!.

     Lawyers in NZ aren’t very capable if they argue that a responsibility of council to provide a public square for protests isn’t up to scratch – is actually a justification for denying public protests.
3. tc 3

   1 December 2011 at 7:33 am

   You only have to look at banks, they would close all branches if they could and force you onto the web/phone as those people and security guards and tenancies erode that ever important bottom line.

   To quote a retired union president ‘ work is disappearing ‘ so you must protect what dwindling levels that remain.
   • vto 3.1

     1 December 2011 at 7:41 am

     That’s right tc, work is disappearing. The industrial revolution, which has provided the base work and economy since it kicked off is coming to a close, or rather, changing to a new revolution. People are not needed to make things anymore. The trick is to ensure that a means of living, perviously provided by work in making things, remains available to people.
     • Colonial Viper 3.1.1

       1 December 2011 at 9:10 am

       It’s more profitable for companies to get rid of staff and offshore employment. Senior executives get bonuses for laying off staff, and major shareholders are rewarded with higher share prices.

       The funniest thing: the top 10% in society are starting to find out that their jobs, their position in society, their careers, are now also getting fucked by the top 0.1%.
       • aerobubble 3.1.1.1

         2 December 2011 at 2:35 pm

         Not on purpose, those with wealth like to hold on to it.
         Just as Saddam had a large number of people helping him retain power, so the rich do.
         The almost wealthy are finding that their employability is being questioned.
         They just aren’t deliverying stablity and certainty to the wealthiest.
         The 1% is worried that whats the worth of an asset if there is no energy to fuel the asset
         (factory, car, city merchantile center).
         Key believes given them ownership of more of the energy production should be enough, but that’s because he’s a total plonker.
4. neoleftie 4

   1 December 2011 at 7:42 am

   This is the tories machine feeling out the public responce to this agenda.
   • rosy 4.1

     1 December 2011 at 7:51 am

     Nah… this is done and dusted. If it was feeling out the public response it would be in a paper other than the NBR.
5. vto 5

   1 December 2011 at 7:46 am

   The most bizarre thing to me is that we have a minimum wage that cannot be lived on.

   What the hell is that about?
   • Wild Colonial Boy 5.1

     1 December 2011 at 8:10 am

     Slavery, a ‘New Haiti’.

     FWIW, I met someone yesterday who said he would never vote for Goff after the 80’s.

     There seemed to be a marked lack of enthusiasm for what Labour had to offer.

     Shearer’s experience of rebuilding shattered societies and economies might be relevant in these times.
     • Colonial Viper 5.1.1

       1 December 2011 at 9:32 am

       Nah Shearer doesn’t get NZ and he doesn’t get New Zealanders.

       The people who decided to vote for Key because Key ‘looks good on TV’ have helped to shatter this country.

       And most people who voted for National voted for John Key. They didn’t vote for National.
   • Colonial Viper 5.2

     1 December 2011 at 9:30 am

     Funniest thing then is a new youth wage which is only 80% of the minimum wage.
     • ianmac 5.2.1

       1 December 2011 at 9:46 am

       80% of $13 = $10.40 per hour.
       40hours X $10.40= $416.00 pw.
       • vto 5.2.1.1

         1 December 2011 at 9:53 am

         $416.00 per week
         – $250.00 rent
         – $150.00 food
         – $50.00 vehicle
         – $20.00 insurance
         – $40.00 clothes, extras.
         – $30.00 electricity
         – $20.00 phone
         _____________
         – $134.00 negative balance.

         Answer this Key, you wanker.
         • freedom 5.2.1.1.1

           1 December 2011 at 10:09 am

           was just doing the same table vto

           as devil’s advocate,
           i would change rent to $180, which is a more credible amount for a new worker out flatting
           for the first time

           If we don’t give the rwnj’s any tiny details to bitch about they may have to actually face the issues
           • freedom 5.2.1.1.1.1

             1 December 2011 at 10:39 am

             hope you don’t mind vto but I re-jigged it a bit to avoid nitpickers being boring

             national’s proposed 80% minimum wage for a 40 hour week would be:

             $416.00 per week

             – $150.00 rent
             – $120.00 food
             – $70.00 vehicle/travel
             – $20.00 insurance
             – $40.00 sundries.
             – $30.00 electricity
             – $20.00 phone/internet
             – $62.00 income tax/acc
             – $ 8.00 kiwisaver
             ———————-
             – $104.00 negative balance.
             • vto …

               1 December 2011 at 10:46 am

               Of course not. The numbers would vary between places and circumstances. Bottom line is that it is absolutely clear that people cannot live on minimum wage. So the obvious question that follows is – what happens to those people? Do they slowly shrivel up and die early? Do they beg and steal? Do they work two or more jobs?

               The situation is both nuts and the rudest thing in NZ.
               • freedom …

                 1 December 2011 at 12:56 pm

                 Working two jobs only makes it harder with our unnecessary Secondary Tax.

                 We already have a perfectly functional progressive tax table and taking two bites from the apple of the poor is sociologically punitive to say the least.

                 When those two jobs are only Part Time you generally have a whole other set of problems as your travel costs and sundries costs increase extortionately.

                 those of us who have actually had to live like this will know what i mean

                 (then on a side issue, if someone is on a benefit, there is the brainless practise of applying secondary tax to the monies left after abatement which usually means that PT job the beneficiary is lucky to secure means an hourly rate of $2 to $3, if you are lucky.)
                 • insider …

                   1 December 2011 at 4:46 pm

                   seconday tax reclaimable at the end of the year if your total tax paid is higher than if you had earned it in a single job. It’s high to cover off all the concessions you get in your primary income ie you don’t get them twice.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     1 December 2011 at 5:33 pm

                     It’s just a complexity that doesn’t need to be there. Universal Income with a flat tax makes things so much less complex and thus cheaper.
                   • insider …

                     1 December 2011 at 5:38 pm

                     Flat tax sounds good to me 🙂
                   • freedom …

                     1 December 2011 at 6:07 pm

                     +1 for Universal Flat Tax on people’s income,

                     and remember that a Company is a legal person so i love the NZ tax table when you think about the income Tax we would collect directly from Telecom, McDonald’s, any of the Banks. 5% G.S.T on everything bought or sold including Imports and Exports, introduce a Tobin Tax for every financial transaction, take BNZ, i am guessing a million individual transactions a week at 0.01% on each transaction, kaching!!

                     and a $15,000 tax free threshold on all income private and commercial as not all businesses are companies and tax fairness is a barometer of any decent society

                     yeah i know, dream on Mc Duff
             • insider …

               1 December 2011 at 4:38 pm

               $150 for food? For one person? What are they eating? What are you on? I spend $200 for a family of 4 and that includes luxuries and cleaning stuff etc.
               • McFlock …

                 1 December 2011 at 5:02 pm

                 okay, so assuming a linear budget for the area that you live in, that would be $50 for food. So still a negative balance.
                       
                 A perfect example of what passes for “debate” when people bring up the slave conditions that a large chunk of the population are expected to live on, be they beneficiaries or the working poor: 

                 Humanitarian A points out the obvious, that income $X is not a survivable income.
                 Toryboy B asks for proof, because he refuses to acknowledge the obvious.
                 A provides a sample budget.
                 B takes issue with a single line expense in the budget and claims it is overblown, meaning either fabricated data or “personal choices” are the problem.
                 B makes big deal of this, and ignores the fact that even if B were right, the budget is still not a survivable income.
                 • insider …

                   1 December 2011 at 5:41 pm

                   Yeah that proof thing is such a bugger to ‘humanitarians’… but can you point out where this ‘big deal’ is that I made of the whole budget? Isn’t the real problem with the ‘debate’ the hyperbole and extreme language some have a habit of leaping to when they read imaginary lines into posts, and use it as their justification for insults and dismissing anything they don’t agree with?
                   • McFlock …

                     1 December 2011 at 5:51 pm

                     Only when faced by people who refuse to accept what’s in front of their face.

                     Even if you were right, the budget is still not a survivable income. The point still stands: to quote VTO “So the obvious question that follows is – what happens to those people? Do they slowly shrivel up and die early? Do they beg and steal? Do they work two or more jobs?”
                      

                     I’d suggest that the “die early” and the “work two or more jobs” are essentially a redundancy – the latter often results in death by over-work.
               • freedom …

                 1 December 2011 at 5:51 pm

                 Insider, this is not directed at you personally, it is a generic answer to all who asked that same questions as you did,
                 “$150 for food? For one person? What are they eating? What are you on? I spend $200 for a family of 4 and that includes luxuries and cleaning stuff etc.”

                 Does your $200pw include all food and liquid consumed at work or whenever you are away from your own pantry?

                 Many of those with families, have simply forgotten that a single person household is not proportionally less expensive to run as many savings in the supermarket, grocers and discount outlets are for bulk items that due to the perishable nature of many goods are simply a false economy.

                 Single person households also pay the same costs for power and telephone services as family homes. These base services of supply and line costs for example do not increase in price just because you have kids. Use of call, data and other services are what increase costs.

                 When you add in the aspirational dreams of those joining the workforce and consider how they may like to attempt to better their low paying position with extra training or night classes, i ask how? That in itself is an issue that has been covered aplenty and the past three years have explicitly shown that education for adults in NZ is no longer a concern of this Government.

                 Perhaps, after serving burgers or lugging boxes or scraping walls or shifting shingle these hard working taxpayers would like to share some of their leisure time with friends, i ask you all, how? Do you think they should just sit in each other’s flats and stare at the wall, cos SKY is certainly not affordable to them. I guess the good news is neither are recreational drugs, by which i mean alcohol.

                 Then i ask, what is the real cost of having tens of thousands of young, hungry, tired, socially isolated people who ever so surely will only become angry at their situation?
                 Is that what is going to build your brighter future?
                 • insider …

                   1 December 2011 at 10:04 pm

                   No it doesn’t cover all of that but it could -it includes bread and fillings and fruit, all of which could make a prepacked lunch. I don’t have to budget that tightly now, but I have in the past and that’s what I did. I could also probably knock 20 to 30 off my base costs by not buying nicer brands and non essential snack foods etc. I’m sure most of us could if we looked at our diet.

                   But we’ve lost the plot slightly. This started as whether an 80% start out youth wage was liveable. It would be very very hard if living alone I agree, but how many 18 yolds are? They share, they flat, they have relatively low material needs. Social isolation is about the last thing that should be happening in these circumstances. I’m not sure why you think it is the default.
                   • freedom …

                     1 December 2011 at 11:13 pm

                     I assure you insider, the plot is very true and direct. Your denial of the social outcome from this chimney sweep policy only highlights how you need to read it again and look more closely at the issues raised. Your response is inadequate to say the least and disregards many of the valid issues. The incision of an 80% minimum wage will leave a wide reaching scar in the fabric of any community.

                     Expressing the pros and cons as if it can be looked at and validated on a case by case basis is laughable. Your stipulation about social isolation only goes to show you have not understood, or choose not to acknowledge, the degree of damage made possible when isolation becomes a by-product of economic policy.

                     Be it for a person, a community or a country
             • insider …

               1 December 2011 at 5:36 pm

               We are talking about an 18yo kid. Their needs are not complex and you seem to be a bit enthusiastic in places

               $416.00 per week

               – $150.00 rent
               – $120.00 food (only if s/he is eating Macs/truffles every day)
               – $70.00 vehicle/travel (ok if using a car. Bus train much cheaper)
               – $20.00 insurance (Way too much – that’s $1000 a year for a kid!)
               – $30.00 electricity ($1500 seems very high for a shared flat when the average bill is 2k.)
               – $20.00 phone/internet (too high for a shared landline. Can get monthly mobiles for $20)
               – $62.00 income tax/acc
               – $ 8.00 kiwisaver
               ———————-
               – $104.00 negative balance.

               Here’s my alternative

               $416.00 per week

               – $125.00 rent (NZ flatmates shows reasonable places for $125)
               – $75.00 food ($75 for a shared flat is heaps)
               – $50.00 vehicle/travel (based on ten trip train pass @ $40 plus a bit)
               – $5.00 insurance (more likely zero for most but this will get some cover)
               – $40.00 sundries.
               – $20.00 electricity (@25cpkw 8000kwh/year two sharing)
               – $20.00 phone/internet (based on $80 a month telecom landline +10gb with 2 sharing a flat)
               – $59.00 income tax/acc (according to the IRD calculator)
               – $ .00 kiwisaver (why bother at this age and income?)
               ———————-
               $22.00 positive balance.
               • McFlock …

                 1 December 2011 at 6:06 pm

                 Your power is far too low for dunedin, kiwisaver is A)wise to start early and B)soon to be compulsory (most likely), and insurance is needed in case flatmate burns the house down leaving you liable.
                  
                 And what’s your point? That it’s theoretically possible for someone to be working full time and only just make ends meet, if they have no dependants are single do not save for their future and have rather modest accommodation? What a mighty point that be.
                 • insider …

                   1 December 2011 at 9:54 pm

                   I’m saying that I can easily come up with a budget that shows it is doable based on publicly available data not just numbers plucked out of nowhere, and it shows that it is not starvation wages or slave labour. I also know of 18 yolds living with their parents only paying $100w board. They would be even better off as the board covers food, power etc. It’s what parents often do for their children.

                   So yes it’s tight, but so what? Unskilled uneducated people just entering the workforce tend not to be able to command a high wage. But it’s a start and you can’t expect to start where others have taken years to get. Are you saying that an 80% youth rate is what you are going to be on forever?
                   • Uturn …

                     2 December 2011 at 7:26 am

                     It doesn’t take people years to get minimum wage, right now. That’s why it’s called minimum wage. But you want the young to subsidise the rich, living rough and hard for the comfy, fat, wasteful, rich, for no other reason but for they are young.

                     Do you come here because people talk to you regardless of your obscene ideas or are you just a lazy troll? Do the other righties not talk to you? Does that not tell you that you aren’t included in their world? But you still support their views. Wake up.
                   • McFlock …

                     2 December 2011 at 2:16 pm

                     I know of 18 year olds who had all their expenses paid by their parents while studying, so any money they got from jobs went on alcohol. But the reason we have minimum wages is that everyone has a humane standard of living, regardless of whether mummy and daddy are there or able to help them out. But then that just goes to show how out of touch you really are – assuming everyone has two parents willing and able to help them out. The real world is a bit more brutal than that.
                      
                     You say “tight”. I say “barely liveable even under the best set of circumstances you come up with and they make no provision for the future or even insure against contingencies”. There are thousands of kids who won’t have the resources, skills or luck to meet your theoretical “tight” best case scenario. What do you expect them to do? Go into debt to live on the hope that being a stock-filler will give them a career that will let them pay back the loan? Steal?
                       
                     You’re out of touch – like shipley when she “lived on a benefit” in the 1990s, but had to stop after a few days “because she got sick”. Poor people don’t get sick, do they.
               • Uturn …

                 1 December 2011 at 6:11 pm

                 In your world there are no bonds for getting utilities turned on, or sickness and doctors bills, and mum and dad pick up the tab. Kiwiwsaver stays opt out, not compulsory. Ongoing educational loans are interest free and everyone climbs like good little climber. Success comes to everyone equally. Anyone who deviates makes a bad life choice punishable by starvation. Sounds fair, it was like that in your day, yes? No? You mean you’ve never had it hard? Yet you think your dream world is reality.
               • Maggie May …

                 2 December 2011 at 11:09 am

                 None of you have factored in the increases in electricity.

                 Remember the Australian model Key kept talking about that works well.

                 Power that used to cost $100 now costs $300 so back to the drawing board and factor in power increases.

                 I’m sure there will be more increases coming from the sale of our assets to the top 10%, then of course there is China and Singapore as the free trade agreements state we cannot block them from buying our assets and experience has shown foreign ownership of NZ essential commodities is just a money making exercise for them.
         • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 5.2.1.1.2

           1 December 2011 at 10:37 am

           If you cant affoprd a vehicle, then dont run one (aand reacll that labour/Greens increased registration and RUCs in part to discouraged private motor use an move people to public transport.)

           If you cant afford expensive rents, move somewhere cheaper

           If you cant afford KFC, dont buy it. Try growing a vegetable. Catch a fish.

           If you cant afford new clothes, dont buy them.

           If you cant afford your cellphone, dont have one.
           • vto 5.2.1.1.2.1

             1 December 2011 at 10:52 am

             Ok, delete the vehicle and replace with bus fares, bicycle costs or lots of walking shoes. Bit unrealistic though.

             It aint expensive rent – it is about as low as can go.

             It aint KFC. How much do you spend per week on food? It includes growing some vege. Try catching a fish yourself – need access to a clean river with fish in it, a boat, fishing gear and time to go fishing. Silly.

             It aint new clothes.

             It aint a cellphone.

             Still negative balance mr clever …………………….

             I am probably wasting my time here but what about if you are on the minimum wage and you have a family to support as well? No doubt you will answer “don’t have kids”. If so then you live a bizarre world that I want no part of.
             • lprent …

               1 December 2011 at 12:20 pm

               He just lives in a bizarre world. Doctrinaire repetition of dogma as ‘facts’ without ever engaging his brain. Gets indignant and displays paranoia whenever anyone challenges him and especially when they ask him to think rather than regurgitate (in fairness it was in my subtle minor sledgehammer mode while I was testing him*) . Humourless – especially about himself.

               Reads like a climate change denier – Wishart clone subtype.

               * As an aside, I’d put moderation on his comments so I could write notes on the incorrect fact ones. The Sprout (I think) took this as a good enough reason threw his comments into trash. I had to fetch them out of the trash so I could carry on tormenting evaluating him.
           • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.1.2.2

             1 December 2011 at 11:05 am

             All you’re saying is that the poor are better off killing themsleves than participating in society.

             This is of course the society you want to see.
             • uke …

               1 December 2011 at 11:48 am

               But who will be left to wipe Curmudgeon’s a**e when he’s old and incapable in the nursing home?
                
               Gotta keep some hope alive in the underclass!
             • Misanthropic Curmudgeon …

               1 December 2011 at 10:39 pm

               sprout: you’re just being a boring arsehole.
               have you not noticed none of your comments are being published? that’s because i just delete them. so save yourself the wasted effort or lift your game. until you change you are only typing your comments for yourself, they won’t be published here.
           • framu 5.2.1.1.2.3

             1 December 2011 at 11:21 am

             “(aand reacll that labour/Greens increased registration and RUCs in part to discouraged private motor use an move people to public transport.)”

             can you explain how the greens did this when they havent been in government?
           • clandestino 5.2.1.1.2.4

             1 December 2011 at 11:40 am

             Screw you mate try getting a job without a cellphone. You’re instantly written off.
             It’s 2011 not a curmudgeons 1955. Dick
           • Akldnut 5.2.1.1.2.5

             1 December 2011 at 11:59 am

             Curmudgeon you idiot- you just described a homeless person living out of a shopping trolley.
             Just showing what a greedy, selfish, self righteous fucking wank you are.
             I dispair that our society produces people like you.
           • freedom 5.2.1.1.2.6

             1 December 2011 at 1:18 pm

             to the misanthrope

             you and your ilk are only a couple of withheld paychecks from disaster and boy oh boy is the real world going to be a slap in the face.

             let us say good fortune forgets you for a few seconds and you are unable to work for a few months. What do you do once your savings have been eaten? Where do you live once the insurance companies have looted their last and packed up. Where will you go after the shares you built up have started falling down? What are your plans for when the bank decides to suspend your credit? When your mortgage is due to be paid and the postpone-a-payment chits have all been utilised? When every call goes to the told-to-do-nothing assistant because your branch manager has not returned from his stress leave that exploded after the derivatives he authorised last year collapsed and his boss just told him the Central Office has cancelled all pensions , all expenses and would he lay off 65% of the staff by Thursday please.

             Do you believe you are immune ?

             p.s. considering what you write, your handle is not clever or funny, it is actually quite sad
             and i do hope that somewhere somehow you realise the strength and wonder of being alive.
             • Misanthropic Curmudgeon …

               1 December 2011 at 10:53 pm

               comment deleted
               sprout
           • hazel 5.2.1.1.2.7

             1 December 2011 at 3:08 pm

             Dude, like. Dude.

             If there are minimum wage jobs on offer in the cities where rents are expensive there must be (as an absolute consequence of your statement) people who earn the minimum wage and who live in cities. Where rent is expensive.

             If everybody who couldn’t comfortably afford current market rents left to live in the smaller towns, (a) rents in the smaller towns would rise as a consequence of basic supply and demand, which I’m guessing is a set of economic theories you subscribe to, or (b) employers in cities might start finding themselves having to pay a living wage in order to get staff.

             And there is an obvious tradeoff between “expensive rent” and “need to pay lots on transport/spend a long time commuting” – and if you live in a city and don’t have private transport how the heck are you meant to go fishing? As an example.

             Maybe you should try to think (if you find yourself able) about why people make the spending choices they do, rather than just assuming it’s because they’re incompetent lazy bludging breeders who are STEALING YOUR MONEY!!!!11!eleventy!!
   • muzza 5.3

     5 December 2011 at 9:28 pm

     It is the same in the UK/US etc, the minimum wage is unliveable – It can’t be any other way for obvious reasons. Oz seems to get by, but is some of the major cities the minimum wage would not be a liveable wage either. Oh the world we let happen to us

     Post industrial age is happening folks – Not in NZ though eh, nah!
6. tang 6

   1 December 2011 at 8:06 am

   Well we knew this was the agenda of the national anyway so no surprises there anything new apart from the mining of the conservation area which is no news at all?
   • fender 6.1

     2 December 2011 at 12:57 am

     So true tang, the only people unaware of these changes were the fuckwits who actually voted National, and that would be funny if it wasnt so serious.
7. Tombstone 7

   1 December 2011 at 8:07 am

   Slave economy – that’s what people voted in with National. Their hateful politics favoring the rich and taking to everyone else with a stick have no place in this country. If it carries on I’m leaving. I’m done with the dumb fucks voting for this nasty shit. It just makes me fuckin’ angry.
   • dave brown 7.1

     1 December 2011 at 1:02 pm

     Why should the 99% leave? There’s always a 1% hireling waiting at the airport to make you even angrier. Stick together figure it out and make the 1% leave. They already have private jets, bank a/cs and flash pads offshore.
     • Maggie May 7.1.1

       2 December 2011 at 11:27 am

       Yes you are right, and the ones that stay in NZ how long will it be before they will be erecting high security fences artound their homes so they can feel safe.

       Once that is done however how longwill it be before they begin to feel very insecure about coming out from behind their security, won’t it be nice to think we achieved this feeling of insecurity in them.
8. ghostwhowalksnz 8

   1 December 2011 at 8:13 am

   Notice the names of the ‘list of authors’ from Chapman Tripp.

   Linda Clark- who is listed as a consultant, she was of course the former TVNZ political editor.

   Isnt it hilarious we have a very detailed view of nationals policy a few days after the election ( but not before for the voters) and one of those getting the information is a former political reporter turned lawyer.

   Why is it the current political reporters cant tell us most of this stuff in the the screeds they write.

   Or is it more likely the current reporters will tell their old chum Linda Clark what the pollies are really thinking but not put it into their stories because its ‘off the record’ or more often they know their editors wont print it.
   • insider 8.1

     1 December 2011 at 4:49 pm

     Clark is their comms manager so she just puts into words we can all understand the idle thoughts of the partners.
9. Colonial Viper 9

   1 December 2011 at 9:02 am

   Virtually any employee can cause almost any business that they work in, tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars worth of damage. Within one or two minutes, if not quicker.

   As the immortal movie Fight Club says – “Don’t Fuck With Us”.
   • ghostwhowalksnz 9.1

     1 December 2011 at 9:52 am

     Very rare. Normally they will steal from ‘the boss’ but keep it sweet for fellow employees.

     Business owners on the other hand will burn down the premises to collect the insurance and too bad about the employees
10. Spratwax 10

    1 December 2011 at 9:54 am

    Yes it is interesting that Linda Clark is listed as a consultant, although hardly surprising. All journalists/broadcasters in permanent employment with the mainstream TV networks and corporate print media over the past 25 years are right wing (even if they started out as something else). To progress in the corporate media you just have to be, period! The collusion of the corporate media with the right wing parties and their supporters prevents us from getting the truth via corporate media sources. Dig around the alternative media on the internet for the truth (Standard, Scoop etc). Key kept repeating how they are the only party helping NZ businesses to increase growth. This was always a nice way of saying ‘we will legislate to make it cheaper to employ labour and make it easier to sack workers, so we can compete better with China’. Hence the ‘wish list’ labour market reforms, forthcoming ACC reforms (similar to Nationals late ’90’s ACC reforms opening it up to private insurers), reversing Labour’s reforms in the ’00’s. If David Shearer becomes Labour leader, and the world economy collapses or seriously worsens, Labour will be a shoo-in for 2014.
    • Afewknowthetruth 10.1

      1 December 2011 at 10:14 am

      Spratwax.

      TPTB are already working desperately to prop up the house of cards. The chance of present arrangements persisitng beyond the end of 2013 is so close to zero it is not worth considering.

      ‘A ratings downgrade by Standard & Poors for six major US banks yesterday added to fears that Europe’s woes would hurt the entire financial system. If one or more European governments default, that would unleash a shock to the world’s financial system that at the very least would lead to recessions in the United States and Europe, severe losses for banks and a global stranglehold on lending.

      The central banks agreed to reduce the cost of temporary dollar loans they offer to banks — called liquidity swaps — by a half percentage point. The new, lower rate will be applied to all central bank operations starting on Monday. ‘

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/worlds-centralbanksact-to-ease-market-strains-6269981.html
11. Afewknowthetruth 11

    1 December 2011 at 10:04 am

    ‘Law firm sets out business wish list’

    Add to that list fracking, deep-sea drilling, mining in conservation areas, greater levels of CO2 emissions (and faster termination of life on Earth), higher levels of cancer and mental illness, debt slavery etc … all of which are necessary if present economic arrangements are to continue for another few years.
12. Misanthropic Curmudgeon 12

    1 December 2011 at 10:25 am

    Whats wrong with any of that?
    • vto 12.1

      1 December 2011 at 10:30 am

      Any of what?

      If you read above you will see an explanation of what is wrong with current minimum wage. Care to answer?
      • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 12.1.1

        1 December 2011 at 10:42 am

        Whats wrong with the current minimum wage is that it locks thousands of young people out of employment.
        • vto 12.1.1.1

          1 December 2011 at 10:57 am

          Bullshit.

          But following your line of logic, if we want to squash down incomes to spread the work around then lets set not just a minimum wage but also a middle wage of, say, $45,000 pa, and a maximum wage of, say, $100,000 pa. That way, Mr Clever, there will be even more money in the hands of business to employ more. Unemployment will be gone forever! You should join the National Party with such cleverness.
        • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.2

          1 December 2011 at 12:25 pm

          Firing an adult worker on a full wage to replace it with a teenager on $10.40/hr does not create new employment, dickwad.
          • Uturn 12.1.1.2.1

            1 December 2011 at 12:39 pm

            Not only does it not create jobs, with those same jobs paying less, less than the cost of living, the consumer economy goes into decline. No cash to spend, no need for phones, petrol, cars, accessories, take away food, new clothes… Great Plan Nats: transfer all cash immediately to toppers and basically flat line the economy starting with the disappearance of townships and malls.
          • Vicky32 12.1.1.2.2

            1 December 2011 at 7:05 pm

            Firing an adult worker on a full wage to replace it with a teenager on $10.40/hr does not create new employment, dickwad.

            I am reminded of an advert I got sent a few months back, for ESOL teachers – my field, so of course I checked it out… Student Job Search, so I couldn’t apply – “no experience needed, $13/hr”… I tracked down the “private employer” who turned out to be a school I had worked for in Feb/March, and emailed the DOS, who told me he’d hired someone already. Of course he had! By employing a student part-time for $13/hr, he was saving himself $25.00 an hour, which is what a qualified adult is paid.. 13.00 + 25.00 = $38.00 (and that’s an average.) I got my revenge sort of, by citing his school in my blog for overseas language learners, as one to avoid. It has readers all over the world, thanks G.L.R… 🙂 )
        • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1.3

          1 December 2011 at 12:36 pm

          “it locks thousands of young people out of employment.”

          Ah, the fact-free fantasy world of the National party dupe. You have no idea whether that statement is true: you haven’t fact checked it or questioned it, you’re just repeating what you’ve heard. Prove me wrong by coming up with evidence (not your worthless opinion; evidence).
          • Tiger Mountain 12.1.1.3.1

            1 December 2011 at 1:12 pm

            @ misanthrope:
            There are NZ DoL papers and numerous US and European ones, but the NZCTU’s Bill Rosenberg said….
            “a major study by Dean Hyslop and Steve Stillman looking at the effect of increases of between 41 percent and 69 percent in the youth minimum wage in New Zealand was done in 2007. It found ‘no robust evidence of adverse effects on youth employment or hours worked’ and in fact, showed there was an increase in hours worked for 16 and 17 year old workers.”

            “Before those increases came into effect Business NZ warned that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, there could be up to 4 percent fall in employment. But this was shown to be completely wrong.”

            Bill Rosenberg said “employment growth appears to be much more strongly related to overall economic conditions than to a particular issue such as the minimum wage. This is what the evidence shows and it would help this debate if the Government and business lobbyists acknowledged that.”

            Now I am not going to do research for every tory turd of an opinion squeezed out here but this is too important a falsehood to go unchallenged.
            • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 12.1.1.3.1.1

              1 December 2011 at 10:49 pm

              comment deleted
              sprout
        • freedom 12.1.1.4

          1 December 2011 at 1:26 pm

          Misanthropic Curmudgeon -or more accurately,

          Coprolite

          what locks thousands of young people out of employment is greed.

          Do you, in your tiny little heart, truely not understand the basic reality of profit and loss

          if only a few profit then many have loss

          If the few took a little less, the many would have a lot more

          I understand you are handicapped by an indoctrinated hatred of sharing your toys
          and i am sorry that you were once asked to give half your ice cream to your sister when her’s fell onto the sand, but for fuck’s sake it is idiotic mantra munchers like you that are the reason tens of thousands of kids are unemployed.
          • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 12.1.1.4.1

            1 December 2011 at 10:50 pm

            comment deleted
            sprout
13. giovani 13

    1 December 2011 at 10:45 am

    People should not leave but stay and form a resistance movement to oppose shonkey and national.
    We need to stand up to them by what ever means we can. Complete civil disobedience by state workers and youth who do not want to work for slave wages would bring down the system if people stand together. Rise up NZ and stop Our oppressors destroying our country.
    You do not have a majority mandate Key so fuck you.
    • fender 13.1

      2 December 2011 at 1:15 am

      Oh he most certainly thinks he has the mandate, and dispite most of us thinking hes a total fukwit hes not totally stupid. Is that the reason he put a military man in as Govener General to lessen the chance the millitary may go with the 99% I wonder.
14. Tiger Mountain 14

    1 December 2011 at 11:16 am

    The pack of arseholes that produced this CT monetarist love letter illustrate that we live amidst class struggle.

    •Wages will not rise if the mechanisms for obtaining them are removed or degraded-ie collective bargaining and union access to workers. High unemployment and 90 day ‘Fire at Will’ keep the pressure on workers not to unionise. We have a minister of Labour in name only taking no interest whatsoever that meat workers at CMP have been locked out for weeks so the boss can cut wages. ShonKey himself does not want wages to rise except for the 1%ers, he is on record. Labour’s WFF in work tax credit, -welfare for the middle classes, is really what continues to save the Natz miserable hides. It insulates thousands, and not that substantially, from the reality the rest of us face.

    • The disconnect will have to be organised around one way or another, how the hell is a $15 minimum wage going to be achieved under a fucking tory government. It is not. So when is something going to blow? You can enforce precarious employment and low wages, enable ongoing redundancies and make the welfare system so unpleasant and restrictive that in effect people are denied assistance. But people still need to eat. Aspiration does not pay the bills. Families and the volunteer sector can only fill in for so long for the failure of a right wing state. A futurist nightmare of car jackings, surveillance and living in cardboard boxes?

    I hope the likes of Mana continue to organise at community level, and the main stream parties get their heads around the seriousness of the situation and stop playing nice.
    • Colonial Viper 14.1

      1 December 2011 at 12:26 pm

      Both Mana and Democrats for Social Credit need to organise at a front line level.
15. logie97 15

    1 December 2011 at 8:47 pm

    The Chapman Tripp Group. Have a look at the line-up. Includes the Linda-I’m-ever-so-reasonable-and-balanced-ex-TVNZ-reporter-Clark as a consultant. Stephen-ex-ACT-failed-National-candidate-Franks claims on his website that he used to work for them.
    • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 15.1

      1 December 2011 at 11:01 pm

      comment deleted
      you really are dense aren’t you? that would be ten comments i’ve deleted in the last half hour and you’re completely oblivious you’re only barking at the moon.
      sprout
      • Draco T Bastard 15.1.1

        2 December 2011 at 1:46 am

        You’re too nice sprout – I would have banned him permanently after the first 3 😈
        • lprent 15.1.1.1

          2 December 2011 at 4:41 am

          I’ve just dropped him into autospam. He was trolling. I am pretty sure that was either Oscar or his inbred cousin.
16. Bill 16

    1 December 2011 at 8:58 pm

    Aw, c’mon. All that shit was in a post by (I think) ‘Irish’ a month or so back. Experts and ‘business wish list’ my arse. Pay attention!
    • freedom 16.1

      1 December 2011 at 11:23 pm

      Bill, are you stirring? 🙂
      It is a very different event, be it wishes or white papers, when releasing a list like that in the policy discussion leading up to an Election. I imagine you know full well that when the NBR publishes a wish list on employment law reform immediately after an Election, they only do so because they have been given a big green light.
17. Maggie May 17

    2 December 2011 at 11:55 am

    A big red light could go on the economy by the workers earning slave wages, they just do what they are paid to do and no more, don’t care about quality control because wages do not cover that, don’t care about your employers business as wages do not cover that either.

    The business owner is going to be stressed and hamstrung having to do quality control themselves and to find they are the only ones that care about their business, what a great mess they will be in.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS