National’s failure: 400,000 wanting work

Written By: - Date published: 6:40 am, November 9th, 2012 - 202 comments
Categories: jobs - Tags:

Remember when Key’s excuse for rising unemployment was that it was a “lagging indicator” and the numbers would soon fall? Well, that was 3 years ago and its been lagging a hell of a long time because, since then 25,000 more Kiwis have become unemployed. And remember when the HLFS was “notoriously volatile”? That was a year and a half ago – unemployment is up 20,000 since then. So, what was the excuse yesterday with the shocking unemployment numbers?

And they are shocking:

13,000 more unemployed in the last quarter. That’s 1,000 people per week. That’s 200 jobs lost a day.

175,000 unemployed – the highest in 20 years.

The unemployment rate up to 7.3%, the highest since 1999.

The jobless (the unemployed plus those who have basically given up actively looking) up to nearly 300,000 a massive 115,000 increase under National.

When you add in the people who want more hours, there are now over 400,000 Kiwis looking for work – and that’s up by 150,000 under Key.

Key blames the statistics. Insinuates that they’re wrong. His proof – ‘anecdotal evidence’. He says we’ll have to wait for future HLFSs to see if there’s really a problem… of course, if they’re bad he’ll make up excuse about them too.

Did you see that cringe-worthy bit in the US election coverage where, just after all the major networks had called Ohio and, therefore, the election for Obama, Karl Rove was on ranting and raving that the statistical models were flawed and it was all going to be OK? Key is over Karl Rove.

The guy’s head isn’t in the sand. It’s up his arse.

Joyce, he blames the rest of the world, says the weak economy elsewhere is hurting New Zealand…. except, the facts show otherwise.

In 15 of the 34 OECD countries, unemployment has dropped in the last year. The only countries to have an increase of our size or larger: Greece, Israel, Italy, New Zealand, Portugal, and Spain. Illustrious company we’re keeping under National.

This government is a failure. It has failed in its basic duty to run an economy that creates work for those who want to work. And all the excuses in the world can’t cover that failure up.

202 comments on “National’s failure: 400,000 wanting work ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Dem Young Sconies 1
    9 November 2012 at 7:09 am

    Is it time we follow the lead of Iran to create NZ manufacturing jobs?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/7926568/Iran-bans-luxury-imports

    We could solve the job crisis overnight by banning the import of luxury goods, but not the import of component parts. It’s time to get back to us producing the goods we use, instead of importing ourselves to poverty.

    • Colonial Viper 1.1
      9 November 2012 at 10:32 am

      Oh I wouldnt ban them, just double GST on imported luxury items, and create a billion dollar fund to help start up and expand NZ manufacturing.

      • infused 1.1.1
        9 November 2012 at 11:55 am

        I love your simple examples CV. No thought required.

        • felix 1.1.1.1
          9 November 2012 at 12:54 pm

          Oh there’s thought there. Essentially he’s thinking about a desired outcome and then thinking of a mechanism to achieve it.

          The “no-thought” alternative would be to leave every possible every decision to be made by market forces.

        • Frank Macskasy 1.1.1.2
          9 November 2012 at 2:47 pm

          “I love your simple examples CV. No thought required.”

          As opposed to National’s job creation policies?

          How’s that working out, ‘infused’?

          At least CV has thrown some ideas into the ring. How ’bout you contribute a few suggestions instead of taking cheaop shots from the side?

          • Jackal 1.1.1.2.1
            9 November 2012 at 4:25 pm

            Although I shouldn’t really try to clean up infused’s spray and walk away, it’s basically because he, and the party he supports, has no ideas Frank Macskasy. They’re scraping the bottom of their barrel, and have done so for a long time. The problem is that they’re blinded by their own idealogical propaganda that has been proven wrong so often that only somebody with their head firmly planted up their own arse would believe it.

            In contrast to this epidemic of denial from the right in order to retain the status quo, we have many on the left wing promoting ideas that could resolve problems that have been largely ignored by politicians.

            I have to disagree with CV though, it’s not about increasing GST on anything. It’s about identifying the things we can make and ensuring the system promotes and protects those industries. It’s about ensuring that any imports that could impact on our productive industries don’t gain an unfair advantage through a lack of legislature, or worse yet legislature devised to undermine our production. It’s also about making sure international trade agreements are devised so that they benefit workers, and not just investors, traders, and speculators etc.

            Protectionism shouldn’t be a dirty word, especially when it could largely halt the steady decline in the quality of our lifestyles.

            The main problem is that globalisation has ensured countries are divided against the common good. We’re seeing the extreme end of this in some European nations, somewhat as a result of tactical maneuvers by the US to weaken the Euro. We see it in slave wages throughout Asia and the Middle East, and we’re also feeling it here in little old New Zealand through deregulation and environmental damage.

            Having said that, there’s a lot to be gained from globalization, but presently the negative effects of over-exploitation and resource depletion as a result of a lack of governmental control of right wing fringe interests is having a widespread and largely irreparable impact on most countries. Let’s hope New Zealand manages to buck that trend from 2014 and beyond.

            • Frank Macskasy 1.1.1.2.1.1
              11 November 2012 at 10:35 pm

              Jackal, +1

              And I especially luv this bit,

              “Having said that, there’s a lot to be gained from globalization, but presently the negative effects of over-exploitation and resource depletion as a result of a lack of governmental control of right wing fringe interests is having a widespread and largely irreparable impact on most countries. Let’s hope New Zealand manages to buck that trend from 2014 and beyond.”

              I concur, 100%.

            • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.2.1.2
              11 November 2012 at 10:45 pm

              You don’t have to raise funds by raising GST, but you will have to raise taxes of some description if you want to create a multi-billion dollar fund for starting up new manufacturing industries.

        • mike e 1.1.1.3
          9 November 2012 at 4:03 pm

          CONfused CV would make a good PM then!
          put GST on all imported items under $400 would be a good idea CGT on all property FTT then our dollar would drop exports and employment would increase and the Govt woudn’t have to borrow!

      • Steve Wrathall 1.1.2
        9 November 2012 at 12:11 pm

        Do the expensive foreign luxuries we can no longer afford include Keynsianism?

        • McFlock 1.1.2.1
          9 November 2012 at 12:44 pm

          that’s a necessity. And it makes money for everyone, not just casino traders.

          • Steve Wrathall 1.1.2.1.1
            9 November 2012 at 1:32 pm

            You mean prints money

            • Colonial Viper 1.1.2.1.1.1
              9 November 2012 at 1:39 pm

              It’s not actually necessary to print money these days Steve, you just electronically credit it to the nation’s bank accounts.

              You know, like Japan, China, USA, UK, ECB, etc.

              Alternatively, if you really don’t like “printing” we can just tax the wealth back from those who already have it.

              Which would you prefer?

              • Draco T Bastard …
                9 November 2012 at 4:56 pm

                I’d prefer both. Government printing the money and then taxing it back off those that have accumulated it.

            • McFlock 1.1.2.1.1.2
              9 November 2012 at 1:41 pm

              Nope. Because when you actually build infrastructure (not holiday highways, but really useful stuff), and invest in productive industries (not bailing out Gordon Gecko wannabes), and indeed finance it sensibly (rather than giving yourself a massive tax cut and pretending that the economic benefits will trickle down), the returns are many times the initial investment.
                     
              Of course you’d already know you were talking bullshit if you actually paid attention to reality rather than living on Planet Key (40 minute timeshare slots available, they supply the heroin you bring the needle). 

            • Frank Macskasy 1.1.2.1.1.3
              9 November 2012 at 2:51 pm

              “You mean prints money”

              Why not?

              Hell, our trading partners are doing it, hand over fist. Including that “paragoon” of the Free Market, the US of A.

              Maybe, Steve, the last 30 years Friedmanite economics has resulted in this mess and just maybe we need yto look at alternatives.

              It took our Russian cuzzies 70 years to learn the their economic system wasn’t delivering. How long are you prepared to wait to admit that market economics is not much better than it’s reverse-mirror-image, marxist economics?

              • Steve Wrathall …
                9 November 2012 at 3:09 pm

                USA is a “paragoon” of free enterprise? The same USA where New York recently criminalised the selling of soft drinks above a certain volume? Don’t make me laugh.

                Not even under Brezhnev did it reach such idiocies as we are seeing in Obama’s SSR.

                • McFlock …
                  9 November 2012 at 4:07 pm

                  That’s a twofer: snidely taking advantage of a typo, and wildly hyperbolic comparisons with totalitarian regimes. You must be in a bunker with Chuck Norris, cowering in paranoid terror as the “thousand years of darkness” descend because of Obama’s re-election.

                • Frank Macskasy …
                  9 November 2012 at 4:23 pm

                  “Not even under Brezhnev did it reach such idiocies as we are seeing in Obama’s SSR.”

                  Resorting to hyperbole to win a debate?

                  *tsk, tsk*

                • mike e …
                  9 November 2012 at 4:47 pm

                  Silly Wanker Fundamentalist Fwit Funny Bloomberg is a republican with brains you naive idiot even Adam Smith said the govt should step in when the market fails!

                  • mike e …
                    9 November 2012 at 4:56 pm

                    Steve WrathallThe US UK Australia NZ have the highest rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes which if we don’t do anything the right wing nut job fundamentalist default policy, our hospitals and medical system are going to be inundated!Costing Taxpayer many times more money at the bottom of the cliff than an ounce of prevention at the top of the cliff user pays directly for sugary crap drinks that I don’t or buy for my family so why should I subsidise the coca colas of this world when they have plenty already and don’t want to take responsibility for the problems they cause!
                    You need a weeks holiday in the pike river mine and wake up to your economic neanderthalism!

            • mike e 1.1.2.1.1.4
              9 November 2012 at 4:11 pm

              Sill Wanker like Shonkeys $10 million windfall when Merrill Lynch was bailed out with Printed Money !
              Which ML has managed to loose again and may require another bailout Weird that

            • Frank Macskasy 1.1.2.1.1.5
              11 November 2012 at 10:36 pm

              “You mean prints money”

              What do Friendmanites use – coloured beads, muskets, and IOUs?!

        • onsos 1.1.2.2
          9 November 2012 at 1:01 pm

          It pans out that Keynesianism was critical to NZ weathering the GFC at all. If Labour hadn’t run significant surpluses during the 2000s government debt would be beyond critical. But I guess it’s easier to caricature Keynesianism by arguing that it is simply being profligate.

          • Steve Wrathall 1.1.2.2.1
            9 November 2012 at 1:53 pm

            If you’re going to defend Keynsianism then Labour should have massively cut back govt during the global good times of the early ’00s. You know. Counter-cyclic spending and all that. Instread they went mad with the chequbook. Labour-lite have continued this.

            So it seems the answer is always increase government spending?

            • McFlock 1.1.2.2.1.1
              9 November 2012 at 2:03 pm

              oh bullshit.
                   
              Government is not just about “counter-cyclic spending”. A well-funded public service does shit like recommend improvements in mine regulation, gets the numbers right when talking about how many buildings a school has, or keeps rail links going to save money on road maintenance.

              And in case you didn’t notice Cullen left the economy in good stead and a parting gift of $10b in tax cuts. Whereas all this government have done is shut down the economy and ballooned debt. 

              • Steve Wrathall …
                9 November 2012 at 2:36 pm

                “A well-funded public service…”

                Any other type?

                “… does shit…”

                with you so far

                “… like recommend improvements in mine regulation…”

                it was the Greens’ opposition to open casting that meant the Pike River coal had to come out in a much more dangerous mine.

                “… gets the numbers right when talking about how many buildings a school has…”

                Why shouldn’t schools close/merge if there are massive population movements due to earthquakes or any other reason?

                “… or keeps rail links going to save money on road maintenance….”

                Spend $5M repairing Gisborne line plus ongoing maintenance, so it carried the equivalent of 5 truckloads of goods per day. Makes as much sense as a sack full of hammers.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  9 November 2012 at 2:46 pm

                  But none of your assumptions are true Steve.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  9 November 2012 at 3:07 pm

                  Doesn’t it hurt your head to not only live on Planet Key, but to spout lies all day long? If you’re not careful you’ll become like the Republicans, blaming their electoral butthurt on everyone except themselves.

                • McFlock …
                  9 November 2012 at 3:36 pm

                  Fuck you’re a moron, Steve.
                     
                  As demonstrated by:

                   “… gets the numbers right when talking about how many buildings a school has…”

                   Why shouldn’t schools close/merge if there are massive population movements due to earthquakes or any other reason? 

                        
                  The numbers were wrong: Buildings that didn’t exist and had never existed, long jump pits counted as liquefaction, intact buildings counted as damaged, and so on. The numbers were obviously wrong, and badly so. That has nothing to do with rational school mergers to deal with a changing population. The report that estimated the situation was a goddamn embarrassment, and wouldn’t have happened if they’d had decent checking systems in place.

                • mike e …
                  9 November 2012 at 4:32 pm

                  SW $1.8 billion on not listening to treasuries warning about SCF
                  $30million for doing nothing on coastal disaster insurance!
                  29 lives because Kate Wilkinson Shelved mining recommendations and laughed at media Questions!
                  Austerity is forcing our dollar up govt take down seriously damaging our economy
                  so we have idiots like you trying to defend failed 1920’s 1890’s economic policy !

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    9 November 2012 at 5:01 pm

                    29 lives because Kate Wilkinson Shelved mining recommendations and laughed at media Questions!

                    Actually, that was Gerry Brownlee followed by Kate Wilkinson.

            • Frank Macskasy 1.1.2.2.1.2
              9 November 2012 at 2:58 pm

              “If you’re going to defend Keynsianism then Labour should have massively cut back govt during the global good times of the early ’00s. ”

              Not so, Steve.

              You forget the 1990s, where National cut back health, education, police, housing, etc. The state sector was a mess.

              Labour’s tax increase for top earners and increased spending on state services was to correct National’s “razor gang” policies.

              Remember the deaths that happened on hospital waiting lists? Remember Southland farmer, Colin Morrison?

              Unfortunately, most New Zealanders seem to have forgotten the mess than Bolger/Shipley left this country…

              Here, let me remind you; http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/learning-from-history/

            • mike e 1.1.2.2.1.3
              9 November 2012 at 5:07 pm

              SW lies govt spending Fundamentalist BS Every other major trading block does it you naive idiot Right wing govts do it as well well you have absolutely no Idea look at the US under Reagan he even improved welfare benefits Australia under Howard why has the lucky country left us behind!
              Do some research or shut up and stop pedalling your Fundamentalist tea party BS!
              Look where it got the Tea Party Fwits They were decimated!

          • Frank Macskasy 1.1.2.2.2
            9 November 2012 at 2:52 pm

            Good point, Onsos

          • mike e 1.1.2.2.3
            9 November 2012 at 5:00 pm

            SW Not to mention the $20 odd billion that the Cullen fund saved
            +the $14 biilion in ACC which has made Borrowing bills english the worst finance minister we’ve had since the 1920’s look good $1.6 billion gain in the last year if Cullen hadn’t saved that money we would be needing a Greek type bailout!
            Steve get you facts right or Fuck Off!

        • mike e 1.1.2.3
          9 November 2012 at 4:43 pm

          Steve if you keep repeating a lie people will eventually believe your bullshit show me one country or one state in the US that your naive policies work!
          Countries don’t work the same as this simpleton home budget that you and the likes of sarah palin Act Thatcher etc portray! its an utter failure !Show me contrary research their is noneE

          Modern economic research has proven it fails ie Argentina 1997-8 Act policy was put in place by the IMF (CIA revenge for Falklands) and Argentinas economy went down the gurgler
          Unemployment skyrocketed the pegged dollar destroyed their economy!
          Luckly they ditched your policy told them to fuck off with their lis and BS like I’m telling you!
          Fuck off Steve Come back when you know something about economics other than how to balance a house hold budget!

      • David H 1.1.3
        10 November 2012 at 10:19 am

        + strengthen up the rules on making those who hide money in Trust Funds also pay their share.

        Increase to tax rate to 50% on say 300-500k
        then 60% 500-750k
        and 75% on over 750k

        And you can say that’s excessive as if you look at some other countries they have way higher tax rates for the top incomes (I can’t call them earnings because they do nothing for the money).

  2. RedLogix 2
    9 November 2012 at 7:30 am

    On top of this you have to add in the 50,000 odd thousand who’ve been leaving for Australia annually. That more than doubles these numbers James.

    The ONLY businesses doing well in this country are the banks.

    As for Key’s response … I’ve said it before … you wouldn’t take this shit from a four year-old.

    • Chris 2.1
      9 November 2012 at 7:54 am

      If you include the people leaving by the same logic you better take off the number of people arriving in NZ.

      From my experience in general people haven’t left NZ for Australia because they can’t find a job here. More go because they can go to Australia and do the same job (or less) for more money. While that is a serious issue too it is not directly related to unemployment.

      • RedLogix 2.1.1
        9 November 2012 at 8:00 am

        The simple point is that if they stayed they would add to the total labour workforce one way or another. And sure there are arrivals … but we know that on balance we are loosing more people than we are gaining.

        Either way without Australia as a safety valve these appalling numbers would be substantially worse … and there’s no way to wriggle out of that.

        • Chris 2.1.1.1
          9 November 2012 at 8:08 am

          We are currently only losing 3,000 people per year hardly a significant amount.

          If there was no migration I would expect the numbers to be about the same. While I agree the people who are leaving would be added to the amount. I suspect the new arrivals are currently over represented in the unemployment statistics as 99% of them will not have a job when they arrive.

          • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.1.1
            9 November 2012 at 10:36 am

            We are currently only losing 3,000 people per year hardly a significant amount.

            Not sure how you can say losing all your friends and family overseas, and skilled NZ professionals who know the systems of this country, is not significant.

            Your trying to equate 1 NZ family leaving with 1 foreign family turning up as cancelling each other out is disingenuous.

            • Chris 2.1.1.1.1.1
              9 November 2012 at 11:41 am

              In the context of what we are talking about it is not significant. Whether it is my friends or not has no bearing on these statistics. It is far more disingenuous to bring that kind of emotion based argument into it.

              I admit that losing skilled professionals will definitely impact unemployment but there is no reason to believe the majority of immigrants are unskilled or inferior to NZ trained people.

              • Colonial Viper …
                9 November 2012 at 1:42 pm

                It is far more disingenuous to bring that kind of emotion based argument into it.

                What’s wrong with bringing an emotional argument into it?

                Why should the emotional life of this country and of NZ families not be reflected in its political and economic discussions?

          • Frank Macskasy 2.1.1.1.2
            9 November 2012 at 3:00 pm

            “We are currently only losing 3,000 people per year hardly a significant amount.”

            Would it be a “significant amount” if Labour was in power?

        • Wayne 2.1.1.2
          9 November 2012 at 9:11 am

          Actually, having skilled people leave probably makes the problem worse. They tend to go to Australia for higher paying jobs – Australia is 25% wealthier than we are, so clearly that will be an attraction, and on top of that the mining sector is probably 50% higher than NZ. By and large the people leaving have jobs, but their replacements are probably not as productive at least in the short term. In addition the people leaving remove demand out of the economy.

          When NZ has higher overall population growth our economy does better (say more than 1% per year). That has been the long run experience.

          • thomas 2.1.1.2.1
            9 November 2012 at 9:46 am

            “When NZ has higher overall population growth our economy does better”. You are confusing cause and effect. When our economy grows faster the effect is an increase in population growth. Population growth in itself does not necessarily result in economic growth…

            • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.2.1.1
              9 November 2012 at 11:56 am

              Population growth in itself does not necessarily result in economic growth…

              Actually, it does because that increase in population requires a proportional increase in services and resource use.

              • thomas …
                9 November 2012 at 1:09 pm

                Thanks, but please note the term “necessarily”. I was also referring to per-capita growth (which I did not make clear). However, a proportional increase in services and resource use is only possible when resources are unlimited…as we are discovering they are not.

            • Wayne 2.1.1.2.1.2
              9 November 2012 at 11:59 am

              In the early 1990’s the increased migration from Taiwan and Korea was a major factor in pulling Auckland out of recession. They boosted demand for housing, consumer goods and of course their general expenditure.

              A moderate level of population growth in developed countries (around 1%) is generally good for growth, at levels greater than the population growth. Conversly static population (which is pretty much NZ at the moment) mean less dynamism in the economy.

              This is one of the long run problems for much of Europe and also Japan.

              • Colonial Viper …
                9 November 2012 at 12:11 pm

                The demand for Auckland housing through that time was massively damaging to the NZ economy. It helped cause billions of dollars worth of liabilities for the Govt and for local councils.

                Boosting the demand for consumer goods – thats a laugh. Japanese and Korean immigrants coming in and buying from Bond and Bond Japanese and Korean made consumer goods is a real boost to the NZ economy.

                This is one of the long run problems for much of Europe and also Japan.

                Let me clue you up here.

                Population growth has been used as a ponzi scheme accelerator to economic growth. You know how a ponzi scheme works right? The scam can only be sustained if you continually add more people to the pyramid at the bottom.

                Once that growth stops – the thing fucking falls over.

                • Wayne …
                  9 November 2012 at 4:04 pm

                  Well that is the point. When you have static population, growth does tend to stop. But not really Ponzi, since each person makes a real contribution to the economy.

                  In regard to the comment by Thomas, Auckland has had reasonable GDP growth in the last little while. An unemployment rate of 8.6% is pretty high. It was 6.8% just 3 months ago, so that implies a 25% increase in just 3 months, which would be almost twenty thousand people. Is that likely?

                  • lprent …
                    9 November 2012 at 4:50 pm

                    Looking at two points on a statistical measurement is rather daft. The sample error rates are too high to derive much significance. And I seem to remember June seemed abnormally low…

                    Ummm 7.3% 3 months ago if you’re looking at Table 6 of the September quarter spreadsheet. I think you mean the rate the previous year – which was 6.8% in September.

                    2010 Sep 7.4
                    2010 Dec 7.8
                    2011 Mar 7.9
                    2011 Jun 7.3
                    2011 Sep 6.8
                    2011 Dec 6.7
                    2012 Mar 7.9
                    2012 Jun 7.3
                    2012 Sep 8.6

                    Absolute sampling error is 1.2%

                    It isn’t particularly far out of range. More likely that June was low. Not looking good in Auckland from the anecdotal conversations I get involved in (when I can’t avoid them).

                    • Wayne …
                      9 November 2012 at 5:18 pm

                      Yes, I did get the wrong June figure; I just looked at a news report, rather than the actual source. An increase from 7.3 to 8.6% (a 16.5% increase), is high, but a bit more believable. It will still be more than 10,000 extra unemployed in Auckland.

                    • lprent …
                      9 November 2012 at 5:51 pm

                      I usually just look at rough and ready deltas when I’m doing a quick by eye look. In this case there is significant bounce on the 3 month (delta column 1), but looking 6 months back from each point (delta column 2) tends to smoth out the trend (which is all you can really do on so few points). That shows a pretty big layoff after xmas and a continuing slow increase in unemployment since.

                      2010 Sep 7.4
                      2010 Dec 7.8 +0.4
                      2011 Mar 7.9 +0.1 +0.5
                      2011 Jun 7.3 -0.6 -0.5
                      2011 Sep 6.8 -0.5 -1.1
                      2011 Dec 6.7 -0.1 -0.6
                      2012 Mar 7.9 +1.2 +1.1
                      2012 Jun 7.3 -0.6 +0.6
                      2012 Sep 8.6 +1.3 +0.5

                      Which is what people are telling me. It is a damn sight harder in Auckland this year than it was last year.

              • thomas …
                9 November 2012 at 1:35 pm

                “A moderate level of population growth in developed countries (around 1%) is generally good for growth”

                Please explain then why the unemployment rate in Auckland has risen 1.8 percentage points to 8.6% yet population growth in Auckland is well over 1% (1.5%)?

          • mike e 2.1.1.2.2
            9 November 2012 at 4:44 pm

            Wayne 37% wealhtier

    • Sunny 2.2
      10 November 2012 at 10:53 am

      @RedLogix…”you wouldn’t take this shit from a four year old”…

      Oddly,we demand that children tell the Truth but allow politicians to lie.

  3. Logie97 3
    9 November 2012 at 7:41 am

    Apparently you can have a top paying job with a department like WINZ and suddenly leave and get a “very generous payout thank you very much”.

    But if you are just an ordinary employee in this country – it’s a different story. You’re surplus to requirements. Sorry you’re on your bike …

    • AsleepWhileWalking 3.1
      9 November 2012 at 1:05 pm

      They are looking at changing the system so if you are made redundant by one government department, but then employed by another government department you don’t actually get any redundancy. I got this from the September(?) PSA newsletter which is online somewhere…

  4. IrishBill 4
    9 November 2012 at 7:41 am

    The nats policy is doing exactly what they want it to. Their (un)employment policy and welfare policies are simply an extension of their labour policy – they’re designed to suppress wages. It’s what you do when you represent capital. Their problem is that they can only get away for pretending otherwise for so long.

    I think that time is running out. 

  5. Tracey 5
    9 November 2012 at 8:12 am

    I thought he was going to say “unemployment has gone up because of all the bludgers we have kicked off the dole, so it’s a good sign. Nothing to worry about here. Now, what will I wear to meet Chuck and CamCam”?

  6. marsman 6
    9 November 2012 at 9:06 am

    7.3% unemployment, same as the late 1990s when surprise, surprise the same nasty incompetent trougher Bill English was doing his best to help the vile Jenny Shipley shaft the country.

    • Frank Macskasy 6.1
      9 November 2012 at 3:53 pm

      Got it in one, Marsman.

      The similarities are too numerous to mention. Which should be no surprise; same Party, just a few different players.

      • anthony bull 6.1.1
        9 November 2012 at 4:13 pm

        The same similarities such as our third largest city being destroyed by two earthquakes and a worldwide global financial meltdown?

        Hold on – we’re actually doing pretty well compared to most countries out there. Whoops.

        • felix 6.1.1.1
          9 November 2012 at 4:27 pm

          That’s the line we’ve heard non-stop from the Nats for the last couple of years; everything is the fault of the earthquakes and the gfc.

          Serious question, anthony: What specifically do you imagine National would be doing differently had there not been any earthquakes or a gfc?

        • Frank Macskasy 6.1.1.2
          9 November 2012 at 4:35 pm

          That might work, Anthony, except National doesn’t apply the same excuses for those made redundant or solo-mums (but never solo-dads)…

          When people hold National to account – it’s the GFC.

          When National hold the unemployed to account – it’s a lifestyle choice.

          Sorry, this time the Nats are being held to account and made responsible for their own policies. Even the business sector is not terribly impressed by John Key’s incompetance,

          “Business NZ sees no economic plan”
          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10763014

          When your own constituents question you, you know it’s serious.

        • Jackal 6.1.1.3
          9 November 2012 at 4:55 pm

          Absolutely wrong anthony bull. Many countries that were impacted to a greater degree by the global financial crisis are doing a lot better than New Zealand. Therefore policy that’s already been shown to have failed is the most likely cause.

      • mike e 6.1.2
        9 November 2012 at 5:59 pm

        One National govt was led by a macho women and the other a effeminate man weird that!

  7. vto 7
    9 November 2012 at 9:11 am

    So, is it correct that at each of the two times of highest account deficit (or some such measure) and highest unemployment in the last twenty years it has been Bill English at the helm?

    • mike e 7.1
      9 November 2012 at 6:03 pm

      Don’t forget the biggest exodus to Australia ,Manufacturing decline,increasing suicide rate etc,etc
      The only thing you can say about the double dipper is that he is Consistent
      In Fucking up the New Zealand economy with his blind adherence to Austerity!

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.1
        9 November 2012 at 6:22 pm

        English doesn’t actually believe in austerity, and he isn’t actually conducting austerity (beyond some fairly mild retrenchment here and there).

  8. Rogue Trooper 8
    9 November 2012 at 9:40 am

    in round figures; for every 1000 people of employment age and capacity, 75-150 are unable to obtain appropriate employment, depending on region or ethnicity.(the comparison is probably greater if youth are considered)
    and with a quick glance at the representation of the social, environmental and economic landscape in todays daily national “rags” one can only shake one’s head and walk on…….

    • Vicky32 8.1
      10 November 2012 at 1:33 am

      75-150 are unable to obtain appropriate employment, depending on region or ethnicity.(the comparison is probably greater if youth are considered)
       

      The older workers are having a hard time too! Today, I saw two teachers at the school where I was relieving, lose their jobs, to a trio of very young women . Another two are plannning to leave, as the jerk who bought the school as a going concern, gutted it, and fired most of the staff, wants to retain these two, but pay them considerably less than they are worth ( and than they have been getting).
      I have not been able to get permanent work in 4 years, and I’ve just turned 59 years old. One of the women (for whom I was relieving) is in her 50s, and I had to phone her and tell her that Keith has decided that she shouldn’t come in on Monday.
      Of the two he wants to retain, one is in her 40s, but has irreplaceable skills, and the other is in his 50s, but has similar skills.
      The new teachers he introduced to the (angry) students, are probably 25, 23 and 18 years old. One has been in NZ from the USA for 2 weeks – so how is it even possible that she has a work permit?
      Obviously this new boss is confident that he will get away with what he has done, simply by saying “It’s a new company, and who  the previous owner had hired is irrelevant” (that’s what he said to me). As a reliever I had nothing to lose, so I ranted at him. The young women were so smug I wanted to slap them, and that’s one of many reasons why I am fed up with hearing about the poor dear wee young people. Providing they’re prepared to accept a low pay rate, they can gloat about taking older peoples’ jobs away, and believe me, they did gloat!

      • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1
        10 November 2012 at 9:42 am

        Obviously this new boss is confident that he will get away with what he has done, simply by saying “It’s a new company, and who the previous owner had hired is irrelevant” (that’s what he said to me).

        Actually, there’s laws preventing exactly that.

        • Vicky32 8.1.1.1
          11 November 2012 at 4:51 pm

          Actually, there’s laws preventing exactly that.

          Oh, do you have details? Where could we find out? Because some of the former staff are still interested in fighting this mess..

  9. RedBat 9
    9 November 2012 at 9:58 am

    Had to have a look, I could hear the baa-ing from afar.

  10. Uturn 10
    9 November 2012 at 10:02 am

    Yes, in our modern reality, people become unemployed for any number of external or personal reasons. In a short video, we have a Labour party manipulation of who is a worthy unemployed person – how their approved cultural goals were interrupted. Just imagine how NZ could have profited if the character (because once this little snippet video becomes a vehicle for Shearer’s politics, it isn’t anything to do with the person called Darryl anymore) could have kept on working to pay for his home renovations?

    He could have sold up at a profit, maybe moved to the city and started in on the investment property market. Maybe he could’ve stayed where he was, raised his kids, encapsulated by the local culture. Positives and negatives: Imagine the effect of his time away from his growing young family had he stayed employed. He could feed them, pay for unexpected health emergencies, better their education so they could become managers at the mine. Anything could have happened to exalt his social status. Would family relationships suffer? Are relationships worth anything anymore? Can the emotional gaps be filled by any stranger wandering past?

    But the problem is that he’s now at risk of becoming the unemployed scum, as defined by his own culture. Oh, he’s ok now, but if David comes back in a year and Darryl hasn’t found a new job, he’ll be lazy bludging scum. David won’t see him, then. It might happen sooner in the eyes of his neighbours. Labour say he is worthy, right now, because he wants to work and he owns property. He was trying to live the dream. He wasn’t on a sickness benefit, struggling to renovate his house with a tin of paint. His skin is white, from a district with good strong white values. He doesn’t live in an urban garage, wear the clothes of another culture or have any apparent disability. He isn’t a hopeless case, David and Labour can save this one – and you – if only people who fear becoming the imaginary, manipulated “Darryl”, vote Labour.

    Who here has been unemployed? Plenty, by my memory of comments. Did you learn anything about yourself while you were unemployed, or did you just focus on the house renovations and the ideals of the white middle classes.

    Did you hope that one day soon the things you lost would be handed back in the face of a smiling employer’s handshake. Were they ripped from your metaphorical hands despite your best attempts? Were they never available to you? Did you just not try hard enough, not want it enough. Did you really, really, really, try to believe, sifting through all the self help and employment books in the library; all the free course and endless job vacncies; until you couldn’t think of anything else anymore and the practical decay of your lifestyle and the internal misery forced you to let go?

    Did you fall into the cycle of destructive self-fulfilling beliefs comfortable people use to protect themselves from your reality: the longer you are unemployed, the less likely you are to be employed. You just don’t want to work, isn’t that right. You are starving yourself to death purposely. It’s not our fault. Our culture trumps the idea of respect for human life. Nothing we can do. We need to go renovate the house.

    Maybe you instead arrived at Auckland airport at 3am, afraid and surrounded by people chattering in a language you didn’t understand, carrying your emotions from a hellish place you, somehow, seemed to have just woken up from. Forget everything you are. Here, embrace this… can’t you see I’m smiling at you while I speak? That means we have great plans for your future. If I talk slow enough, the culture within my words will transfer themselves to you, smothering your identity in favour of mine and I will once again be comfortable. I expect there will be no problems at your end.

    Who are you, now that the people around you think you’re unworthy, beyond help, don’t want to work and just plain scum? Have you found any positives inside yourself? Tell us, is life here just the dream of house renovations or is there something else the employed and accepted will never know exists? Which Party has a plan that includes you – other than one of dismissal, demonization, condescension and presumably, eradication? How does it feel to be a political convenience? Who will you vote for now?

    I don’t expect too many answers from a website largely populated by comfortable whites. It’s just the limitations of our reality. But we could ask ourselves if our beliefs about unemployment and the associations we’re trained to make are a gross misunderstanding of life and a direct contravention to the Human rights we often harp on about. I’d suggest that any politician that talks about “the unemployed” is a dangerous fool. We are people, we lead different lives, not everything is within our control. That one person doesn’t enjoy another’s reality or preferences doesn’t give them the right to oppress and destroy. Our social welfare system has become an excuse. Our political rhetoric has become an excuse. If we ever had them, we’ve lost our understanding of basic principles of living together in harmony.

    • Bill 10.1
      9 November 2012 at 10:30 am

      Okay, I’ll say it.

      Job cultures are viscious and demeaning. Jobs rob us of our dignity while the prevalent propaganda would have us believe the opposite is true. Most people have a job in order to live rather than living to have a job (the ‘proper’ view to hold). Most people, if they have been ‘habituated’ through having many years wasted doing jobs, don’t know what the fck to do with themselves when they suddenly don’t have one…and I suspect the psychology that plays out isn’t a million miles away from any other addiction withdrawal.

      Is holding on to a broad view of what it means to be a person in this narrow world of homo-economicus much different today than what might have been experienced by an aethiest in a world dominated by the expectations of the church a few centuries back? I’m guessing the villification, fear and pressure to conform would stand comparison…

      • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1
        9 November 2012 at 12:42 pm

        +1

        In a world where all that is needed to live a good life is readily available jobs should not be the defining feature of that life.

      • muzza 10.1.2
        9 November 2012 at 4:01 pm

        Jobs rob us of our dignity while the prevalent propaganda would have us believe the opposite is true.

        Apply exactly that line of thinking to almost anything that has been learned/taught or otherwise, and then we can make real strides into understanding the nature of very interesting questions about life!

        Most are slaves, and totally unaware of it!

      • Tim G 10.1.3
        10 November 2012 at 1:39 am

        You know many people on this blog will actually smile, nod and pat you on the back while you make these kinds of claims.

        But seriously Bill (and Draco T too) where have you ever seen a functional example of the utopia you dream of where we are all free from wage slavery?

        Sharing these fantasies doesn’t do much for the public perception of your working class and unemployed (but wanting to work) friends, either.

        • McFlock 10.1.3.1
          10 November 2012 at 2:10 am

          Fair point to a degree, but the flipside is that we simply accept the status quo. From what I’ve seen over the past 20 years or so lifestyles have begun to revolve more around work, and being beholden to work, than around family and community.

          It used to be that if a club wanted to have an event on the weekend, almost all members could attend. Now many members are working random hours, and unemployed members are often unable to maintain membership fees. Even at a party I attended a couple of weeks back, a few people were rostered to work Saturday so couldn’t attend, even though they really wanted to.

          That is one of the problems, as I see it. I believe much of it is because workers can’t negotiate for better conditions or rosters with the same power as the employer can dictate, especially with unemployment at the levels it is now. It’s not all the fault of ECA/ERA, but some of it is a cost of what tories like to call “more flexible employment”. A little tweak there would certainly be a start at reducing the wage-slavery we have inflicted upon ourselves (something like not allowing employers to match individual agreement conditions to collective agreements negotiated by unions).

        • Bill 10.1.3.2
          10 November 2012 at 6:07 pm

          But seriously Bill (and Draco T too) where have you ever seen a functional example…

          Saw it, experienced it and basiclly lived it through the late 80’s – early 90’s…no boss, no individual wage earning necessity. There was work in it’s broadest sense and income earning work organised on democratic principles (average 8 hours per week per person) that brought in a collective income…enough to pay off the mortgage on 18 houses and supply us all with our material needs.

    • kiwicommie 10.2
      9 November 2012 at 10:35 am

      “Who are you, now that the people around you think you’re unworthy, beyond help, don’t want to work and just plain scum? Have you found any positives inside yourself? Tell us, is life here just the dream of house renovations or is there something else the employed and accepted will never know exists? Which Party has a plan that includes you – other than one of dismissal, demonization, condescension and presumably, eradication? How does it feel to be a political convenience? Who will you vote for now?”

      The Democratic Party, and I leave this year. They certainly don’t view people like me as ‘scum’, just people that need a helping hand. Why is it that city councils raise rates, blow all their money on fancy art works, and in the case of rural towns blow it on waterworks. Do you know what cities in the US are doing to create growth, they are spending their money on training people for work and cutting unemployment; rather than just adding a few shells to the seashore. I will never understand this world you live in and I am from an upper-middle class household, even when I was employed I donated to the red cross and went out of my way to help people; it is a pity you don’t do the same…but I guess NZ is becoming a rip off Bioshock. Is this New Zealand or Rapture?

      We have the lack of compassion and empathy (as well as the social divisions) that would have horrified the Liberal party of the 19th century and the early Labour and National parties. I have friends from Europe that are suffering from and fighting austerity, so I don’t feel alone at all. I feel united in the fact that hundreds of millions alongside me are suffering and fighting against a political hierarchy that doesn’t care; as well as the cozy group in jobs that despise those in need, even if those in need would help you if you were in their position. Businesses can’t create jobs without investment or stimulus, GDP growth doesn’t come out thin air; and raising GST and taxes on the poor doesn’t get people out of poverty.

      Get off Planet Key. Even the IMF has had to relent. Austerity has failed. The sooner John Key packs his bags, and National loses office; the sooner austerity can end and New Zealand can recover from what has to the worst economic disaster since the 70-80s. There is no such thing as growth through a thousand cuts, New Zealand elected a semi-Romney in John Key, he might not be homophobic; but he is already bashing the 41%.

      • karol 10.2.1
        9 November 2012 at 11:13 am

        While I agree with your comments on Planet Key etc, kiwicommie, where is the evidence for this?
         
        Do you know what cities in the US are doing to create growth, they are spending their money on training people for work and cutting unemployment; rather than just adding a few shells to the seashore.
         
        I am hearing very bad reports on such issues from some people in the US.  It may depend on the city.

        • Colonial Viper 10.2.1.1
          9 November 2012 at 11:34 am

          It will be extremely state by state and county by county dependent. A number of municipalities in the US have been bankrupted, and in others cuts to police, fire services and even street lighting and road repairs have occurred.

          North Dakota seems to be doing fine however…

        • kiwicommie 10.2.1.2
          9 November 2012 at 8:26 pm

          Compare the states, obviously many have higher unemployment rates and statistics are gathered differently, but despite that there are clearly states in a better position than New Zealand (taking into account GDP per capita, state debt levels and declining unemployment figures): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_unemployment_rate
          Examples of programs are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathways_out_of_Poverty

          • Colonial Viper 10.2.1.2.1
            9 November 2012 at 8:30 pm

            North Dakota lowest unemployment rate. Damn I’m good 😛

          • karol 10.2.1.2.2
            9 November 2012 at 8:33 pm

            Curiously, New Mexico is a pretty poor state and has a lower unemployment rate than NZ. California, a pretty wealthy state in general, has a higher rate than NZ.

            • kiwicommie 10.2.1.2.2.1
              9 November 2012 at 8:48 pm

              Yep, it depends where you are; some states are doing poorly but they also receive federal assistance like the Pathways out of Poverty program. I think there is really no excuse for National not to be funding training for green jobs and jobs in general; the current training courses in New Zealand do not provide skills for work beyond licenses and cv writing skills. We don’t know the full success of such programs in the US yet, but if you followed the link you have to admit a 80% getting work rate [in some of them] is pretty good. 😉

    • Draco T Bastard 10.3
      9 November 2012 at 12:38 pm

      +10000

      Bloody well said.

    • pete 10.4
      10 November 2012 at 11:01 am

      The right idea. The right time.

      We need doctors free from the burden of “a job”. And nurses. And electricity workers who supply the hospital with electricity. And the bus drivers. And those who maintain the roads. And those who pay the welfare checks. Those who maintain the computer systems to pay welfare checks. And those who mend the drains.

      Sure, our organic gardens may flood, and ruin our crop, but we’ll have a jolly good try at fixing the drains. With our hand-made tools. So hard to get the real thing when factory workers walked off the “life sucking job”. Best we don’t cut ourselves, either, as the pharmaceutical workers left their “demeaning jobs” years ago.

      People should do what they want, when they want. If they feel like “mucking in”, they can do so. If they feel like chillin’, they can do so. They can’t talk on the internet. No one working to keep it going, of course. Computers. Meh. All you need is a good potato.

      No way work, man. No way serving other people. Unite brothers!

      The only thing you have to lose is your credibility.

      • Colonial Viper 10.4.1
        10 November 2012 at 11:14 am

        People can be their own bosses in these organisations and the necessary work and economic output will still get done. And instead of having more money flow to shareholder profits, they will flow into self-set wages and salaries.

        • pete 10.4.1.1
          10 November 2012 at 11:30 am

          So…..that’s still working, isn’t it? Bill (with Draco in support) suggest that “Jobs rob us of our dignity”. A job is still a job if you’re self-employed.

          • Colonial Viper 10.4.1.1.1
            10 November 2012 at 11:51 am

            You need a deeper understanding. I’m not just talking about being self-employed, I’m talking about being self-directed, an independent owner-worker in the true sense of the term.

            This moves people beyond “jobs” and even beyond “careers”.

            • pete 10.4.1.1.1.1
              10 November 2012 at 12:14 pm

              What does “self-directed” mean? I do what I like, when I like?

              What is an “independent owner worker”? A contractor?

              • Colonial Viper …
                10 November 2012 at 12:15 pm

                What does “dictionary” mean? What does “google search” mean?

                essentially yes – the worker-owners as a group would decide what work, how that work gets done, when that work gets done, and what happens with the profit.

                • pete …
                  10 November 2012 at 12:19 pm

                  Self directed: Directed or guided by oneself, especially as an independent agent. Could you explain how this works in practice?

                  Independent owner worker: I couldn’t find an exact definition, but it sounds like a contractor. Are you advocating people become contractors?

                • pete …
                  10 November 2012 at 12:29 pm

                  You altered your reply to include “essentially yes – the worker-owners as a group would decide what work, how that work gets done, when that work gets done, and what happens with the profit.” after I posted.

                  Well, you could start a company using this structure tomorrow. Have you read a book called “Maverick”? I think it can work well.

                  I’m less sure how well this would work in, say, a doctors surgery. Not many doctors I know like being on call, but accept they must do it as part of their job, given there is a community need for this service. This would still be done under your model, I take it? In which case, I don’t see how it’s different from what happens now.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    10 November 2012 at 12:58 pm

                    I’m talking about the Government providing hundreds of millions in support for worker owned co-operative enterprises.

                    I’m less sure how well this would work in, say, a doctors surgery.

                    This is in fact what happens now in many group GP and dental practices.

                    • pete …
                      10 November 2012 at 1:04 pm

                      Why wait for the government? Loans are cheap. Each worker simply raises part of the money.

                      Government would need to get that money from somewhere. Where? And if it did get it, then would it hand it to anyone who wished to form a workers collective, no matter how inept?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 November 2012 at 1:06 pm

                      Details mate, the details can be worked through.

                    • pete …
                      10 November 2012 at 1:10 pm

                      They’re important. Else it’s too easy for others to write it off as a utopian fantasy if you can’t demonstrate how it works in practice.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 November 2012 at 1:12 pm

                      “Maverick” which you referred to, gives some details.

          • Draco T Bastard 10.4.1.1.2
            10 November 2012 at 12:43 pm

            Working to make someone else richer is a soul destroying job and is what National and Labour are talking about when they talk about people being employed. Working to improve society is a normal and life enriching experience but it shouldn’t be all of a persons life.

            And the bit that you don’t understand is that we could have all that we have now with far less work if the few people at the top didn’t take all the wealth created by others.

            • pete 10.4.1.1.2.1
              10 November 2012 at 1:05 pm

              “Working to make someone else richer is a soul destroying job ”

              So start your own business or workers collective.

              “And the bit that you don’t understand is that we could have all that we have now with far less work if the few people at the top didn’t take all the wealth created by others.”

              Sounds nice. I look forward to joining your workers collective.

              • Colonial Viper …
                10 November 2012 at 1:12 pm

                it needs to be scaled up rapidly, allowing tens of thousands of workers, and eventually hundreds of thousands, the opportunity to transfer into new work arrangements.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                10 November 2012 at 1:59 pm

                So start your own business

                That would just be propagating the failed system that we have now.

                Sounds nice. I look forward to joining your workers collective.

                And that statement just proves you stupidity and lack of imagination.

                • pete …
                  10 November 2012 at 2:16 pm

                  I think it proves I look forward to joining your workers collective.

                  I look forward to self-directing, like not actually turning up. Or just doing the fun stuff. Will I be fired? What happens to me then? Join another workers collective?

                  • McFlock …
                    10 November 2012 at 2:23 pm

                    No familiar with the co-operative business model, are you.

                    • pete …
                      10 November 2012 at 2:50 pm

                      Not directly, no.

                      These are valid problems you will encounter under such a model. Presumably, you’re aiming for full-employment. Well, what do you do with the people who just don’t work very hard? People who take the path of least resistance? They are self-directing, they’re just not self-directing in a way that is terribly productive. Presumably, you don’t want significant wage gaps as that will only lead to inequality. So it’s going to be difficult to motivate using wage differentials.

                      So, what do you do with the people who take the rational action of doing very little? If you fire them, then where do they go?

                    • McFlock …
                      10 November 2012 at 3:08 pm

                      You act like there aren’t thousands if not millions of cooperatives working around the world today. They seem to address the issues you raise just fine.

                      Fonterra, or credit unions, for example. Or worker cooperatives.

                      Try wikipedia next time.

                    • pete …
                      10 November 2012 at 3:11 pm

                      “They seem to address the issues you raise just fine.”

                      Right. They fire people.

                      But if you’re doing this on a national scale, where do they go?

                    • McFlock …
                      10 November 2012 at 5:57 pm

                      Into a role they are suited for.
                             
                      And if there genuinely is no work they are suited for or find tolerable, do you really care if they just go onto the dole until they find their way?  
                           
                      Basically, you’ve reduced the problem from one worker alienated from their current job into someone who is alienated from every possible position (paid) in the country.
                         
                      I’m not sure that this is a realistically significant problem, given that most people want to do something (even if that “something” is not currently deemed to be of value under the current system).

  11. Steve Wrathall 11
    9 November 2012 at 10:05 am

    “It has failed in its basic duty to run an economy that creates work for those who want to work….”
    Yes, by carrying on with Helen Clark’s policies: WFF, IF student loans, next to no change to RMA, etc, etc.

    • One Tāne Huna 11.1
      9 November 2012 at 10:15 am

      Have the the first idea how stupid you sound? You’re talking about the policies that produced the lowest unemployment rate in NZ history.

      I mean, seriously, doesn’t the cognitive dissonance register with you just a little?

      Doesn’t the fact that your faith-based “policies” (although “clusterfuck” would be a more accurate term) have been exposed as a bath of pigshit every single time they’ve been implemented make you question them at all?

      Are you really so cretinous?

      • kiwicommie 11.1.1
        9 November 2012 at 11:02 am

        Are you trying to reason with the Key cult? It is about as effective as arguing with the Reagan cult? 😉

      • Steve Wrathall 11.1.2
        9 November 2012 at 11:35 am

        Are you really so cognitively dissonant that you cannot see the effect of loading extra costs onto employers (higher min wages, longer parental leave, and the rest of the Lab/Green wish list) will make them less willing to take on extra staff?

        • Chris 11.1.2.1
          9 November 2012 at 11:43 am

          I agree to a certain extent with your second post, but I am far more interested to hear your argument about how WFF and IF student loans stops jobs being created.

          • Steve Wrathall 11.1.2.1.1
            9 November 2012 at 12:16 pm

            Contribute to high taxation and govt spending which discourage work and crowd out private sector spending.

            • PlanetOrphan 11.1.2.1.1.1
              9 November 2012 at 12:19 pm

              Bollocks M8!

            • Colonial Viper 11.1.2.1.1.2
              9 November 2012 at 12:23 pm

              How does it crowd out private sector spending Wayne? Because to me this is a cute Reaganomics one-liner which is nothing more than paff.

              If the private sector is not creating jobs and spending into the economy, there’s a very simple solution – have the public sector do it.

              [lprent: I presume that was Steve that you were replying to.]

              • Steve Wrathall …
                9 November 2012 at 1:47 pm

                So if the private sector were humming along nicely you’d be happy to cut back the size of the state?

                • One Tāne Huna …
                  9 November 2012 at 4:10 pm

                  Earth to Wrathall: government spending is now a larger proportion of GDP than at any time between 1999 and 2008. So much for the smaller government meme. It’s dead. If you hadn’t nailed it to the perch it’d be pushing up the daisies. The policies you have learnt to parrot are a litany of failure. Get over it, move on with your life.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  9 November 2012 at 5:25 pm

                  (Thanks lprent)

                  So if the private sector were humming along nicely you’d be happy to cut back the size of the state?

                  1) If the private sector were actually pulling its weight, which it is not, state spend as a % of GDP would naturally be much lower.

                  2) The “size” of the “state” is a bullshit Americanism. The only valid question: is Government delivering the quality and quantity of services that people require.

            • framu 11.1.2.1.1.3
              9 November 2012 at 12:29 pm

              yet…

              WFF is essentially a subsidy that enables business to keep wages down
              Reduced govt spending (via job cuts, raising GST etc) has sucked money OUT of the economy
              People on the whole dont refuse a pay rise or refuse more work because of the tax they might incur
              Many private companies in the current growth restrained climate would love a govt contract

              – explain further, cause at the moment your talking simplistic slogans

              • Steve Wrathall …
                9 November 2012 at 1:45 pm

                A subsidy from where? Like all middle class welfare, WFF relies on the delusion that we aren’t being robbed blind from our pay packets and at the checkout. Then when the ticket-clippers return a small fraction we should be pathetically grateful?

                • Frank Macskasy …
                  9 November 2012 at 4:37 pm

                  WFF was a targetted tax cut. Not well targetted, but targetted nevertheless.

                  It made a change from National’s tax cuts for the rich…

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  9 November 2012 at 5:11 pm

                  A subsidy from where?

                  The workers. The rich have tax dodgers that they utilise to not pay the tax that they should be.

            • Draco T Bastard 11.1.2.1.1.4
              9 November 2012 at 12:49 pm

              Actually, government spending would encourage work and if the private sector can’t compete with the public sector then we have found the more efficient form.

              • Colonial Viper …
                9 November 2012 at 1:01 pm

                lolz. Spot on.

              • Steve Wrathall …
                9 November 2012 at 1:36 pm

                So you’re willing to let the private sector compete with the public in health, education, superannuation, accident compensation…?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  9 November 2012 at 1:43 pm

                  Sure why not.

                  We’ll take the gloves off the public sector and see what the privateers can do in competition.

                  You want to start a private prison. Build it with your own money

                  You want to start a private school. Build it with your own money.

                  This public competition will also apply to banking, telecommunications, etc. mind you.

                  The governments ability to borrow money at under 3% to build this infrastructure will be a key factor in giving NZers cheaper services.

                  • Steve Wrathall …
                    9 November 2012 at 2:39 pm

                    And I can take the tax I would have paid to a state provider and pay it to the provider of my choosing.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      9 November 2012 at 2:45 pm

                      Sure, thats fine as well, as long as no private firm uses any assets, infrastructure or educated people who have come through the public funding system as that would be public subsidy of private business and basically, corporate welfare.

                    • Steve Wrathall …
                      9 November 2012 at 3:41 pm

                      Why shouldn’t they? They’ve helped fund them already.
                      Or by the same argument, state organisations shouldn’t use the fruits of capitalism.
                      Such an unreasonable restriction on private enterprise means you actually don’t believe they should be allowed to compete fairly against State providers at all.

                    • framu …
                      9 November 2012 at 3:59 pm

                      your the one that wants to opt out buddy.

                      or is it opt out when it suits – but sponge off the state when your ideology wont cover the bills? (just like saint rand)

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      9 November 2012 at 5:30 pm

                      Steve, you want the private sector to fend for itself without Government support, so be it.

                      Then you can try and compete against the Government building your own parallel infrastructure and services.

                      Good luck mate.

                      Also, fuck this “fair competition” concept. It’s dog eat dog in the market place don’t you know?

                      If the Government has competitive advantages over the private sector, like pre-existing infrastructure, cheaper sources of funding, etc. it should use those to the full. Not give lame private sector performers a head start.

                      If you can’t compete mate you shouldn’t survive. Fuck off.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  9 November 2012 at 5:19 pm

                  Why waste the time and money as the private sector has already proven that it can’t compete.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  10 November 2012 at 9:48 am

                  So you’re willing to let the private sector compete with the public in health, education, superannuation, accident compensation…?

                  You do realise that it’s the opposite that’s happening don’t you? The private sector doesn’t allow the public sector to work because if they did they wouldn’t be able to compete. So they whinge about it to government and lobby the politicians and spread the bullshit that the private sector is more efficient simply so that they can have the public sector shut down.

            • mike e 11.1.2.1.1.5
              9 November 2012 at 6:36 pm

              Thats a silly myth Steve those govt workers spend the money in the private sector take them away as bill Double dipstick is doing and you have a downward spiral as happened last time he was in power as well FACt!
              The US UK EU China Japan you name it all know that that cutting damages your economy you seem to be the only one that doesn’t understand.
              The right wing govt’s overseas just hide that fact spin their way round that one and spend their way out of recession ie Reagan Both bushes hid their borrow and spend in the armed forces you are dumb enough to be sucked into the dogma New Zealanders have given up on that policy a long time ago if you haven’t noticed Rumplestiltskin ACT is polling at less than 1% !
              So that put you in the fundamentalist basket case category!

        • Colonial Viper 11.1.2.2
          9 November 2012 at 12:21 pm

          I think small employers should have banking and transaction costs greatly reduced.

          And money needs to be pumped and circulated into the economy – too many wealthy people and organisations are simply hoarding cash right now.

        • framu 11.1.2.3
          9 November 2012 at 12:23 pm

          longer parental leave wasnt an extra cost for business – it was merely the govt funding a bigger portion of the leave people are already entitled to

          • Steve Wrathall 11.1.2.3.1
            9 November 2012 at 1:40 pm

            Rubbish. Forcing a business to hold a position for twice as long with an inexperienced temp, changeover and getting-up-to-speed costs (at both ends) plus still accruing holiday pay for the absentee, plus the uncertainty of whether they’ll actually come back ARE significant costs. Why should they be borne by an individual business, when the purported benefit of an extra worker 20 years in the future is totally socialised?

            • McFlock 11.1.2.3.1.1
              9 November 2012 at 1:46 pm

              Um – the temp should be getting the hang of the job after 10 weeks, the changover costs are the same largely regardless of duration, so by your measure you’re looking at 6% holiday pay accrual as the total expense. Which is not exactly going to break the bank – or if it is, PPL is the least of that business’s worries. 

              • Steve Wrathall …
                9 November 2012 at 3:46 pm

                This is the normal socialist trick. Claiming each extra cost on business “won’t break the bank”. But this isn’t the only extra cost that Lab/greens are proposing. Is it?

                • McFlock …
                  9 November 2012 at 4:03 pm

                  Funny thing being that business will also reap the benefit of a society that has fewer un/underemployed people, better infrastructure and well-supported local industry.
                      
                  Overall they’d be much better off, but then you know that. But keep on with the spin-doctoring on Planet Batshit.

            • Colonial Viper 11.1.2.3.1.2
              9 November 2012 at 1:47 pm

              It helps generate employment and gives work experience to new workers. All good things mate.

              Why should they be borne by an individual business, when the purported benefit of an extra worker 20 years in the future is totally socialised?

              And individual businesses aren’t part of society now? They aren’t benefitting from socialised benefits now?

              Well if that’s the case, maybe they should move their businesses outside of society mate.

              • Steve Wrathall …
                9 November 2012 at 3:02 pm

                Increases the number of jobs? Absurd. By forcing higher costs onto businesses there is less money to employ others.

                And you still haven’t explained why this benefit to society of having an extra worker in 20 years should be borne by a specific business now. Why not by you. You’re a “part of society”. Aren’t you?

                • framu …
                  9 November 2012 at 4:06 pm

                  you still havent explained how business costs increase when the state covers a greater amount, (as a portion of the total leave available remember) of the parental leave a worker is entitled to

                  im waiting

                • Frank Macskasy …
                  9 November 2012 at 4:45 pm

                  Would you rather that there are not enough jobs and the unemployed becomes a social cost?

                  High unemployment is not just a drain in terms of welfare. It is a waste of human resources; extra pressure on families; forces New Zealanders overseas; increases crime… ad infinitum.

                  There is more to unemployment than your book-keeping bottom line. There is a harsh social cost involved.

                  Hence why job creation is a social issue, not just economic.

                • mike e …
                  9 November 2012 at 5:19 pm

                  Silly Wanker Shifting costs from business’s on to the taxpayer by having lax safety laws. Michael Cullen reduced company taxes twice during the 2000’s as well as sped up capital depreciation!
                  You are an uninformed economically naive idiot!

            • framu 11.1.2.3.1.3
              9 November 2012 at 3:47 pm

              again – explain yourself

              according to the text here all it seeks to do is extend the entitlement that you can receive from the govt

              you can take a lot more than that though its not covered by the govt info here

              look at items
              Extended leave of up to 52 weeks and Paid parental leave.

            • mike e 11.1.2.3.1.4
              9 November 2012 at 5:33 pm

              Thats up to businesses to pick the right staff as I have been an employer before I look long and hard to find the right person rather than rush in and get some one not suitable.
              I all so have good skills with people which makes it a lot easier!
              A lot of employers just expect people to be able to do the job people are not machines and need a lot of thought training and the right management and communication!
              New Zealand by and large is still in the 1800’s when it come to employment!
              Businesses have had huge tax cuts for a long time as well as the 90 cool off period and unemployment is still going up !
              business owners have had huge tax cuts will they ever be happy!
              I’ve just come back from Australia and the difference is stark most employers have much better relationships with their workers than we do here!
              We have the old Elitist boss attitude by and large in Aussie they don’t pull that BS Narcissistic stunt and they get better allegiance from their workers!

        • One Tāne Huna 11.1.2.4
          9 November 2012 at 4:02 pm

          Wrathall, are you so ill-informed that you don’t know that NZ has slipped a place on the “ease of doing business” ranking since 2008, from 2nd to 3rd?

          After nine years of your left wing bogey-man, The World Bank placed us second. It seems reality is biased against you…

        • mike e 11.1.2.5
          9 November 2012 at 6:25 pm

          Silly wanker Those businesses will have customers with money with your policies Australia is ending up with our costumers you idiot!
          Higher wages are better for businesses that are producing not ones that speculate so much .
          Companies that have no regulation shift the cost of damages they do pike river leaky buildings SCF to other businesses and taxpayers!

        • Draco T Bastard 11.1.2.6
          9 November 2012 at 8:05 pm

          Are you really so disconnect from reality that you can’t see that the costs are there no matter what and that if they’re not paid by the business then they’re paid by the community?

  12. PlanetOrphan 12
    9 November 2012 at 10:45 am

    When someone spends long enough in prison they become “Institutionalised”

    Welcome to the “Institutionalised Economy”, All the idiots running back for more Gnat punishment.

    • kiwicommie 12.1
      9 November 2012 at 11:00 am

      The idiots need a short, sharp, shock (they keep saying that is what New Zealanders need). It is called losing an election. 😉

      • PlanetOrphan 12.1.1
        9 November 2012 at 11:12 am

        Exaclty, torture worked for me …… Didn’t it?

        Yes John Torture works for you, now headbutt the wall again there’s a good boy !
        Remember to smile afterwards kid 😀

        • kiwicommie 12.1.1.1
          9 November 2012 at 11:21 am

          A wall? You realize that John took that away too, Canterburians can’t hit themselves on walls of rented homes, that is if they have a home at all; especially when he takes the city from the people and turns it into some cheap copy of the Auckland Supercity. 😉

          • PlanetOrphan 12.1.1.1.1
            9 November 2012 at 12:40 pm

            “Hells Angels” for Government … We Understand anarchy M8!

            What is a “made” man?
            (I’m talking about ShonKey and his Media by the way 🙂 )

  13. Tiresias 13
    9 November 2012 at 11:49 am

    “Did you see that cringe-worthy bit in the US election coverage where, just after all the major networks had called Ohio and, therefore, the election for Obama, Karl Rove was on ranting and raving that the statistical models were flawed and it was all going to be OK?”

    The reason for Rove’s optimism that Ohio was still in play was because he believed Romney was going to win in Hamilton County—where the votes were “counted” on machines made and maintained by Hart InterCivic, a company effectively controlled by Romney’s family. (The same machines were also used in Williams County.)

    The privatisation of the voting process, where votes are recorded by machines supplied and maintained by private companies who refuse to reveal the software on the them and which makes any independent review of votes cast impossible, is surely completely unacceptable with a democratic process to anyone with half a brain, yet is widely accepted in the US. Unbelievable.

    For a machine brazenly altering a vote for Obama as a vote for Romney, see:

  14. Maggie May 14
    9 November 2012 at 11:54 am

    You forget John Key was selected by the National Government to get New Zealand ready for sale and he has nearly finished that.

    The Citizens of New Zealand has never been his personal responsibility and anyway he will be off soon to some new position in the world of finance, he’s okay who else is there to think about?

    • muzza 14.1
      9 November 2012 at 4:13 pm

      The people of NZ have not been any governments responsibility since sometime around the middle of last century!

      Key is the latest leader of the the government charged with continuing the plunder.

      NZ is not many steps away from it almost being completed!

  15. Tracey 15
    9 November 2012 at 1:17 pm

    Agreed @ selected to ready NZ for sale. Voting him out next time won’t change the sales that have already gone through… and as for buy them back. Watch the miracle of increased value between them being sold in 2013 and then sold back at a significantly higher price…

    People seem to forget that Fay Ritchwhite left NZ because we held them accountable as taxpayers. The tried the biggest rort in our history by communing witht he Cook Islands, when it failed they left… Then Fay has the audacity to come back all “New Zealander-ish) over the Crafer farms. Bollocks he saw another profit grab in the making.

    • anthony bull 15.1
      9 November 2012 at 4:38 pm

      Hold on – hasn’t land sale to foreigners in NZ rapidly declined under the current government, from all time highs when Labour and the Greens were in?

      • Frank Macskasy 15.1.1
        9 November 2012 at 4:42 pm

        The Greens have never been in coalition with Labour (outside of the Alliance).

        As for land sales under Labour – fair call. It’s a problem Labour has to address or else risk losing more electoral support.

        • felix 15.1.1.1
          9 November 2012 at 4:48 pm

          Actually they’ve never been in coalition with Labour inside the Alliance either – The Greens left the Alliance before the 1999 election.

          • Frank Macskasy 15.1.1.1.1
            9 November 2012 at 4:55 pm

            Indeed, Felix. I stand corrected.

            • fisiani 15.1.1.1.1.1
              9 November 2012 at 4:58 pm

              The Greens and Mana are the only parties in Parliament that have NEVER been in government. Just shows how silly it is for Greens to side only the Left unlike the sensible Greens in other countries.

              • Jackal …
                9 November 2012 at 5:23 pm

                Really? Although I’m not sure what examples you might provide of Green party’s around the globe siding with right wing policies in order to gain power, I personally believe the strategy of putting principles ahead of compromising on issues such as sustainability and the economy is the right one.

                It appears that your talking out your own arse again fisiani, but what else is new?

              • felix …
                9 November 2012 at 6:45 pm

                “…how silly it is for Greens to side only the Left… “

                An oft stated sentiment fisi, one I had a convo with a friend about last night. What you and he are both missing is that Green policy is all about putting the long term social, economic, and environmental interests of the many ahead of short term profits of the few.

                Protecting the commons is inherently left wing. Who do you think it needs protecting from exactly?

              • mike e …
                10 November 2012 at 1:21 am

                fishy business theirs nothing stopping any one doing business with greens and national have worked with the greens you idiot or are you still stuck up the boss’s ass!

              • xtasy …
                10 November 2012 at 7:36 pm

                fisiani: “sensible Green in other countries”

                Hah! Where do you get your information from?

                The Greens in Australia are supporting the Labour government there, as far as I know, and they have no intention to ever support dicks like Abbot and his right wing jerks.

                There are Green parties in a number of countries, but I know of NO Greens to have supported a conservative or right wing government anywhere.

                In the one European country, where they have a long history, have been very successful and popular, which is Germany, they have also ever only supported the SPD equivalent of a Labour type party in government, not the conservatives. They tried a coalition government in the state of Hamburg, but it did not last long, as the differences were too substantial for that to have functioned.

                Greens are generally rather more “progressive” and towards the left spectrum in political parties and movements. I invite you to correct me on this.

  16. Fortran 16
    9 November 2012 at 1:50 pm

    Hone Harawira was on Radio this morning saying that in view of the unemployment figures for Maori that this will make many more Maori go to Australia.
    Only if they do not have a criminal record as they would not get in !

    • mike e 16.1
      9 November 2012 at 5:16 pm

      Fartrain only if they have had a conviction of 12 months in jail nor more not time served but time sentenced!
      Remember it was a convict settlement!

      • mike e 16.1.1
        9 November 2012 at 5:49 pm

        Fatrain You are a racist bigot as well,I have Maori relatives in Australia . My cousin who came from Melbourne Married into a family from Kaitaia Nga Puhi you wouldn’t meet nicer people,
        Her husband was the poorest member of the family after a divorce left him with the house only worth 600,000 A$ They are now worth many times more that and will be retired in 2 years at 48 and 54 respectively!
        The sister from Kaitia is worth several million as she has built up a dairy farm from scratch the next oldest brother is worth Aprox A$5 million after selling his Queensland dairy farm, Then the next older brother is worth in excess of A$50 million dollars after marrying a rich socialite model he is still a male model and the oldest brother and the nicest one magnanimous fellow he is is worth in excess of A$ 500 million yes that’s right .He has worked his way up from the ground floor of an old English company that was founded 350 years ago to eventually buy out the parent company with a partner!
        They would have never stood a chance with the bigotry we have from the likes of you Fartrain!

        • xtasy 16.1.1.1
          10 November 2012 at 3:45 am

          mike e: With ALL respect, do NEVER count people in MONEY figures, please! You are going down a dangerous track no matter where you come from.

    • xtasy 16.2
      10 November 2012 at 3:40 am

      Hne is onto it there, but he misses the point in some other areas.

      Truth is: Tangata Whenua are taking a solid, strong foothold now in Australia, while their homeland is getting sold off to overseas interests. It is a bizarre story of re- and de-colonisation, of the worst kind, perpetrated by the initial offenders, mostly just out for quick money, profits and cheap gains.

      It never ceases to amaze me, that there have been so many mixed marriages between Maori and Germans, Swiss, Austrians, Scots and the likes, and less with English and others. Maybe those other cultures appealed to Maori more, due to their more integre culture and honesty?

      Just a bit of a tangent thought! So what does “Te Tirity” mean again? Any “English” translator???

    • xtasy 16.3
      10 November 2012 at 3:52 am

      Fortran: STUPID comment, what are you trying to prove? Thousands get there, so they also mostly do better there than in their OWN country, that tells you something, buddy! Maybe NZ is more backward than AUS. And racism is not that much of an argument either anymore, as most Australians are rather fair minded folk. Go dig your hole in shame and cover above, please!

    • Murray Olsen 16.4
      10 November 2012 at 4:30 am

      Never let the facts get in the way of a racist wank, eh Fortran?

  17. xtasy 17
    10 November 2012 at 3:34 am

    ANY INTELLIGENT PERSON in NZ would not want to bother to work for the crap condtions here, unless they would have to, forced by coercion by a punitive, draconian benefit system, which forces almost every one to work and work and work, whether it makes sense what they do or not.

    The pay here is crap, it is often shit working conditions, where you have small time Donald Trump style little capitalist entrepreneurs thinking they are so shit hot and smart, they deserve slaves to do all they expect.

    Work places in NZ are only in part OK, many are total crap, and this comes from a migrant who learned it all over 20 years. They sucked the shit out of me in the beginning, once I got PR they started to hate and resent me, as I was not easy to exploit.

    I never had a well paying job from a NZ employer, it was one from a European country close to mine, who paid me the first decent wage in NZ. That tells you about so many shit NZ employers. They actually love flexible migration, as they want to get it all cheap and shit on workers. They have too little management and organisational skills, so they can only “power on” by playing the master and slave game.

    NZ employers are mostly the worst kind of crap bosses I have seen anywhere on the planet, full of inferiority complexes, incompetencies and dishonesty, too busy cheating IRD, MED and MSd.

    So that is my resume on this!

  18. xtasy 18
    10 November 2012 at 4:33 am

    What? Whoa? “Revolution”, ahem, ha, hey, what the hell? Don’ t want to even think of it. Lifestyle show is on in two hours on prime tv, do not hassle me, bud?!

    What a totally different culture from continent to continent, is it not?

    Some love the laid back sheeples life, and rather retire into domestic refuges, even if rents in Auckland for a 1 brm is $ 300 to 360 a week, or $ 350 to 450 a week for a 32 brm, and up to 500 or 600 or more for a 3 or 4 brm place.

    Ha, hum, bugger, fuck off, leave me alone, will manage somehow, leave me alone, we all have to struggle and cope somehow, well maybe throw in a relly or mate here on the couch? So what is the problem, some ask.

    The problem is: YOUR DUMB ATTITUDES HERE!

    Ignorance, complancency and cowardly conduct, rather putting up with slavery than challenging the mean master, that is your main problem in NZ, but hardly anybody gets it and dares to take a stand, aye?

    Who fought the last two great wars? Your grandfathers! For what, I bloody ask? You deserve all you get with your lack of backbone! What would their voices from their graves say to the crap going on here?

    • kiwicommie 18.1
      10 November 2012 at 10:18 am

      The old NZ is gone, back then we had Maori bashing and colonialism; now that most of that is over with we have right-wing rich snobs and Ayn Rand acolytes who don’t judge by race, religion or sex; they bugger us all equally. 😉

    • kiwicommie 18.2
      10 November 2012 at 10:22 am

      The old NZ is gone, back then we had colonialism and Maori bashing; today we have right-wing rich snobs/Ayn Rand acolytes who take it out on everyone, regardless of race, religion or class.

Links to post