National: it’s not worth the pay cut

58 comments on “National: it’s not worth the pay cut ”

• Comments are now closed

1. The Sprout 1

   19 October 2007 at 1:57 pm

   nice work Tane
2. ak 2

   19 October 2007 at 2:03 pm

   Yes, excellent Tane. You’ve bent over backwards and still managed to shove it up Farrar convincingly.
   As a reward you can go and play with burt – though after you big boys picked on him last time I don’t think mrs Farrar’s letting him come over any more….
3. mardypants 3

   19 October 2007 at 2:04 pm

   Indeed! I also think the narrow focus is misleading – any discussion about productivity necessarily requires consideration of the factors limiting competitiveness and productivity improvements. DPF’s focus is like a crooked throw the the lineout, it shifts the momentum in the wrong direction.
4. Wodger 4

   19 October 2007 at 2:06 pm

   There’s a different take over here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/10/median_incomes_over_time.html

   There will probably more vigorous discussion at KB as well.

   Crank up the random number generator – I’ll stick with Mark Twain.
5. Sam Dixon 5

   19 October 2007 at 2:08 pm

   honesty is the best basis for policy.

   our mate DPF still needs to learn that,
6. the bean 6

   19 October 2007 at 2:12 pm

   have you fwd this to any media outlets? it might help them with their ‘toys and candy’ twitch
7. Tane 7

   19 October 2007 at 2:24 pm

   Hi bean, I figure they’ll probably read it here. But if someone else wants to pick it up and run with it then they’re more than welcome.
8. pete 8

   19 October 2007 at 2:25 pm

   Your graph seems to be suffering from the Y2K bug…
9. Sam Dixon 9

   19 October 2007 at 2:44 pm

   So, at the end of every week, the typical kiwi has more in his back pocket under Labour,

   and the amount extra is growing faster under Labour

   and Melissa Median gets Working For Families tax credits for her kids, she gets 20 hours free childcare if she has a 3-4 year old, she gets $1040 a year on Kiwisaver, she might get a Welcome Home Loan, she gets cheaper doctor visits and perscriptions, she has more Police on our streets, lower crime, lower pupil to teacher ratio in her kids’ school or maybe interst-free student loans, more elective surgery, better roads, higher life expectancy… anything I’ve missed?

   So, does she want to give up all that and faster wage growth for a 410 a week tax cut? National hopes so.
10. Wodger 10

    19 October 2007 at 3:00 pm

    Sam Dixon – do you know Mike Smith? – perhaps you could introduce hime to the concept

    “honesty is the best basis for policy”
11. Tane 11

    19 October 2007 at 3:07 pm

    Oops – thanks Pete, I’ll fix that now.
12. robinsod 12

    19 October 2007 at 3:11 pm

    Wodger – Yawn. I’m sure you could ask Mike Smith yourself. I just looked up the phone book and Wellington Labour HQ is 04 384 7649. Why don’t you fuck off and ask him yourself. Once you’ve got an answer come back here with it. Now be a good boy and run along…
13. ak 13

    19 October 2007 at 3:26 pm

    Yep Sam, as well as all that if she gets crook or falls on hard times she won’t be stigmatised and will get far better service from Work and Income who are now commited to ensuring everyone gets their full legal entitlements, and the voluntary welfare groups who might be able to help her are now better funded and supported by govt. Oh and she’ll be treated by one of the best health systems in the world: check this out – second best health system behind Germany and miles ahead of the US system which comes last at three times the cost per head.
    http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/1027_Davis_mirror_mirror_international_update_final.pdf?section=4039
14. Sam Dixon 14

    19 October 2007 at 3:32 pm

    “…for a 410 a week tax cut?” should be $10 a week of course
15. Leftie 15

    19 October 2007 at 3:42 pm

    Great work….My co-workers would be interested to see these graphs as well.
16. Wodger 16

    19 October 2007 at 3:49 pm

    Good to see you are up to date on the Labour Party Talking Points Sam, but you better check on your honesty policy…

    20 hours “free” childcare – I see the architect of that snafu is departing the scene

    lower crime – I guess you missed the headlines “iolent crime rise ‘national disgrace'”
    Violent crime up from 105/1000 pop in 98/99 to 127.1/10000 in 06/07

    elective surgery – every worked that out on a per-capita basis Sam?

    Do you actually know anyone in that situation Sam? Maybe you should ask them how they cope with the rates bill, the power bill, vehicle running costs and so on.

    Next you’ll be claiming that Labour is improving Melissa’s chances in the bedroom!
17. robinsod 17

    19 October 2007 at 4:00 pm

    Wodge – I thought you weren’t coming back until you rang Smith? Oh and I’m no economist but I’m pretty sure rates, power and vehicle costs are included in inflation. But of course you could be making a non-tradeables argument (in which case are you saying the govt should be subsidising them?). Somehow I suspect you’re not that sophisticated though.
18. Sam Dixon 18

    19 October 2007 at 4:15 pm

    Wodger – go to the stats site there in the table builder you can see the stats for every type of recorded offence going back to 1998 you’ll notice a significant decline across the board.

    Where there has been an increase is in domestic violence – the experts attribute that to higher reporting, a good thing.

    Maybe The Standard boys could post use a nice wee graph from the Stats figures.

    And, obviously, the figures Tane has provided have inflation taken into account: that is, they are adjusted for nominal increases in rates and other non-tradables (checkou the CPI stats to see how everyhitng is included and weighted).

    Also, as men are less likely to commit suicide, be injured at work, be killed on the road or by someone, and as she and her partner are likely to have generally better health, and are less likely to feel lonely or depressed now than in the 1990s (its all in the Social Report), I would say, yes, Melissa’s chances in the bedroom have improved under Labour.

    (anyone want to track down old durex surveys and make sure?)
19. Wodger 19

    19 October 2007 at 4:44 pm

    Sam

    I was suggesting that you forget about waving statistics around (have you checked Mark Twain yet) and talk to something else than your keyboard. You might just find that Melissa isn’t a Labour voter, or that her de-facto likes to give her the bash

    Keep up the party line though – if crime decreases, thats good, if it increases, thats just an increase in reporting, and thats good too – I’m sure it sounds good in Labour party meetings, even if most of New Zealand knows what it really means.
20. Sam Dixon 20

    19 October 2007 at 4:55 pm

    Wodger – the stats unit of the Police are the ones who explain the crime data, I’m just relaying to lazy buggers. Are you saying they produce Labour party lines now? How’s the tinfoil hat fitting?

    Seriously though, its desperation stuff to say ‘stuff the stats, I knows what I knows’ anyone can say anything, no one story can give an overall picture of society, that’s why stats not stories are the foundation of policy.
21. robinsod 21

    19 October 2007 at 5:03 pm

    Wodge – ohh Mark Twain and “the party line”. Between your unsubstantiated claims and your abstract and off-topic references to Twain, Wodge you’re making it really hard for me to say this: but fuck off until you come back with a real argument instead of the smug and self-deluded shit you’re peddling at the mo’.
22. Lady Leftie 22

    19 October 2007 at 5:07 pm

    Thanks team for the graphs – it is always good to stick stats up the arse of that National Party blogger David Farrar.

    I was wondering if you had the time for a Lorenz Curve to show the change in income distribution? It might not be the prettiest picture, but relativity is always an important measure to consider too.
23. mardypants 23

    19 October 2007 at 5:25 pm

    This is, frankly, the problem with focusing on a reasonably narrow indicator as a measure of the performance of a government. Wages are at might be a reasonably direct measure of economic activity/performance, but they’re only an indirect measure of government performance. Why not broaden the lens to include capital deepening, exports, R&D etc?

    Labour’s stewardship of the economy has been at least as good as Naitonal’s but lets all be honest and accept that the NZ economy is not performing as well as we’d like. Once we’ve made this leap, the discussion is sensibly on what to do – Labour’s clearly got some ideas and initiatives e.g. increasing workforce skills, improving R&D incentives, investing in infrastructure and promoting personal savings and increase access to domestic capital. What’s Nationals? Cut taxes?
24. Sam Dixon 24

    19 October 2007 at 5:50 pm

    mardypants – liked your guys bit on that actually – we mustn’t attribute too much of the economy’s performance to the government – there are other very strong drivers at play. that said, government policy (especially such different policies as 1990-99 and 1999-2007) do have quite an impact on wages – i’ve looked at the median numbers myself and its a flat line from 1991 to 1996, thats the result of the ECA crippling low income earners.
25. ak 25

    19 October 2007 at 5:50 pm

    Oh and four weeks holiday, paid parental leave, ever-rising minimum wage, the list is just too long, how about someone doing a “before and after” for Melissa?
26. Sam Dixon 26

    19 October 2007 at 6:00 pm

    ak – good idea, its hard with WfF because you have to make assumptions about her family type, what would be the fair way of doing it,assuming she has two kids (the most common family unit apart from couple only). I’ll see what I can do and see if our hosts here wat to put it up.

    thanks for catching 4 weeks leave and parental leave – knew i’d missed stuff 🙂
27. mardypants 27

    19 October 2007 at 6:12 pm

    Sam, points well made. IR is critical to the way the labour market functions and I’ve also seen numbers on the impact of the ECA. I think this discussions is helpful but my concerns are a little broader – setting the rules by which the labour market operates affects access to employment and distribution of benefits (along with tax laws) but there’s so much more to what governments do and Farrar ignored this because he thinks there’s an indicator that advances his political agenda.
28. PaulL 28

    19 October 2007 at 7:43 pm

    Damn this site is slow 🙂

    I was taught at school that graphs should start at zero unless you have a really good reason. Not the end of the world, but anyway…

    I’m a bit lost Tane on how you are 3 times better off under Labour, when your statistics seem to say about 33% better ($21 v’s $14).

    You are using median income. Of course, this needs to be corrected for hours worked, which median full-time income wouldn’t. Any comment on movement in the number of hours worked by part-time workers in the relevant periods? Otherwise I’m not sure how we get such a discrepancy between median income here and median full-time income per DPF.

    Can you separate the tax correction from the inflation correction? I’d be interested to see the intermediate result so I can understand how such a big difference in gross translates into such a small difference in net.

    After all this (and if we had the graphs starting at zero) I think we could probably agree that there was little difference between the two in real terms, to the median worker. If you were a median full-time worker a little better off under National, if a median part-time worker, a little better off under Labour.

    We might also ask the question as to why Australia seems to have streaked ahead in this time – the discrepancy between them and us has grown considerably under both these governments. Should we be concerned, or is this just NZ’s lot – we cannot do any better (poor us, too dumb compared to our neighbours?)
29. Robinsod 29

    19 October 2007 at 7:52 pm

    Paul, I’d guess that the reason oz has “streaked ahead” is that they haven’t had the ECA (and a barely better version of it) to deal with but don’t worry. I read Costello a year or so ago claiming they needed to make their wages more competitive with ours. Looks like work choices is getting them there.

    Bu they if you want to go back to the pre-workchoices Aussie IR system I’m more than happy to follow…
30. Murray M 30

    19 October 2007 at 8:33 pm

    Good to see you lefties having a fine chat amongst yourselves. Nobody with an IQ registering above the Richter scale wants to engage with you.
31. Robinsod 31

    19 October 2007 at 8:36 pm

    Well that explains why you’ve dropped in muz.
32. Murray M 32

    19 October 2007 at 8:39 pm

    I have not taken part in this discussion, therefore I have not engaged. Don’t call me muz, only my friends are allowed to call me that.
33. Robinsod 33

    19 October 2007 at 8:46 pm

    Jeez – you’ve engaged now though, how about “muzza”?
34. Murray M 34

    19 October 2007 at 8:49 pm

    Okay I will troll. I’m assuming the Robin”sod” means you where the badge of being sodomised as a source of pride.
35. Robinsod 35

    19 October 2007 at 8:56 pm

    Okay, I’ll give away one of the minor secrets of the Kiwi blogosphere – it means I don’t give a sod for you or your arguments and I’ll bend you over when ever I feel like it (it’s not homophobic – it’s about power) Oh and you mean “wear” but seeing as your such a “I’m taking my brilliant arse to aussie – fuck you” kind of a guy I’m sure you made that (really basic) mistake on purpose. Eh Muz?
36. Murray M 36

    19 October 2007 at 8:59 pm

    Yes I did, and for the last time don’t call me Muz
37. roger nome 37

    19 October 2007 at 9:01 pm

    “Jeez – you’ve engaged now though, how about “muzza”?”

    I think “mad muzza” is his common tag.
38. Robinsod 38

    19 October 2007 at 9:08 pm

    Ok Muz – see what I mean? I hope you like Aussie, where exactly are you heading?
39. burt 39

    19 October 2007 at 11:37 pm

    The argument here is that the mid point on a line proves National will cut pay?

    What would be interesting to see would be this graph alongside the median cost of living, median house price and median mortgage size over the same period. That would tell you a story.

    This is pretty line that could produced from the state owned power generators profits or the ministry of ed budget. A graph for school teachers would of course be a lot flatter.
40. JamesK 40

    20 October 2007 at 12:12 am

    Burt, it’s adjusted for inflation.
41. burt 41

    20 October 2007 at 12:59 am

    JamesK

    And as such it’s a pretty good representation of inflation. Which is what I was saying, perhaps poorly.

    I think power prices would track a similar graph (as would state owned power company profits). I also suspect the price of a liter of milk or petrol would track a similar picture. This is the effect of CPI increases on wages, no more no less.

    It represents no standard of living increase, just a shift from CPI running at 1.5%-2.5% to 2.5%-4%.

    Labour have hiked inflation compared to National – Bravo.
42. pete 42

    20 October 2007 at 1:33 am

    I was taught at school that graphs should start at zero unless you have a really good reason.

    Time series graphs tend not to start at zero, because we’re more interested in the changes than in the actual value. The big bold blue and red colouring in is probably borderline misleading, but it sure does look pretty.

    Otherwise I’m not sure how we get such a discrepancy between median income here and median full-time income per DPF.

    The low-income end of the distribution has less bargaining power and so were more likely to be casualised under the ECA. Chop off the left hand tail and the median jumps to the right (1990-1999). Add the tail back in and the median jumps back to the left (1999-2007). DPF’s figures are dominated by this effect; Tane’s figures capture the actual movements in the income distribution.
43. Sam Dixon 43

    20 October 2007 at 2:26 am

    burt you moron –
    inflation adjusted means that changes in cost of living including house prices is already taken into account. the figures you see say that in 1991 the median income after tax would buy good and serices that cost $284 in 2006, whereas in 2006 the median income after tax would buy goods and services that cost $394 in 2006..

    your economic iliteracy is actually embarassing – that is, i feel bad for you for making such a fool of yourself over a basic economic point.
44. Sam Dixon 44

    20 October 2007 at 9:31 am

    PaulL – DPF’s graph only measures full time wages, Tane’s meaures incomes – why is Tane’s better?

    first a premise: the object is to find out how much the typical person has in their back pocket and how that changed under naional and labour.

    The after tax, inflationed adjusted median income does this better than the after tax inflation adjusted median wage becuase it measures all income rather than just full time wages – so changes in the balance of sources of income distrort Farrar’s figures but not Tane’s. For instance, since 2000 many high income people have shifted earnings that were previously wages into dividends or trusts, that makes am average wage measurement lower but median income is not affected and continues to show the true picture.

    Also,just measuring fulltime wages does not tell you anything about if most people have more money in their pockets becuase there is more work around, the median income does.

    Basically, Tane’s figures are the full picture, Farrar’s are a portion of Tane’s figures that have selectd for the parttern they seem to show.

    (DPF’s previous one only measured ordinary time wages even wose, becuase it missed out changes around penal rates, and it was a mean so subjec outler effect from a few wealthy people getting much mroe wealthy than others, thus giving a false picture of the ordinary person’s income)
45. burt 45

    20 October 2007 at 10:18 am

    Sam

    burt you moron

    So where is the statement that the first graph (which looks very much like an inflation graph) is adjusted for inflation… It is not.

    The second one is adjusted for something, spin perhaps. Perhaps you could publish the percentage used for inflation each year and then I’ll happily debate how you got $284 (as a 1991 median wage adjusted by 15 years of inflation).

    Until then I’m happy being a moron for being able to see the unadjusted graph for what it is, a representation of inflation.
46. burt 46

    20 October 2007 at 10:51 am

    Sam

    $272 adjusted by 15 years of inflation to get $284 shows a total of 4% inflation over 15 years.

    Not according to this: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/keygraphs/Fig1.html

    Inflation has been hovering around 2%-4% every year since 2000. Not 4% over 15 years.

    Busted. The inflation adjusted graph is sham.
47. burt 47

    20 October 2007 at 10:59 am

    Sam

    If inflation has been hovering around 2% for 15 years the total effect of that 2% over time is circa 35%.

    $272 adjusted for inflation over 15 years (35%) is actually $418. Your graph should be point down, which I believe is what DPF has been trying to tell you.

    So who is the moron?
48. burt 48

    20 October 2007 at 11:20 am

    Sam

    I was being nice to you guys with the above numbers, from the Reserve Bank link. “Since 1990 CPI inflation has averaged around 2.5%”, which over 15 years gives a gross increase of circa 46%. (not the friendly 2% I first used)

    So $272 grossed up by 46% = $503 which is more than the unadjusted 2006 figure of $485. We really are going backwards compared to inflation.
49. Sam Dixon 49

    20 October 2007 at 11:51 am

    no burt, i’m afriad the problem is still you’re an idiot.

    This time you’ve forgotten to take tax into account. you’ve got to take that off before applying the CPI.

    fish in a barrel mate.
50. pete 50

    20 October 2007 at 11:53 am

    burt:

    Since 1990 CPI inflation has averaged around 2.5%

    Economists do some odd things with growth rates based on the approximation exp(x)-1 ~ x for small x.

    So if prices rise 37.5% in 15 years they’ll call that a 2.5% “average” (i.e. 37.5%/15 = 2.5%)

    Using the Reserve Bank’s inflation calculator I get:

    272.00 $3q1991 = 370.71 $3q2006

    So $272 grossed up by 46% = $503

    A 46% increase on $272.00 should give you $397.12. Might want to take that calculator in for a service.
51. Sam Dixon 51

    20 October 2007 at 1:09 pm

    here’s how to calcualte it:

    a) get the gross median nominal income for the year (1991 $272)

    b) take off tax (23.5% in 1991 leaving $208.08 net median nominal income)

    c) use the RBNZ’s calcuator to adjust to 2006 dollars (rather than, you know, guess) – CPI in 1991 735,in 2006 1000. $284 net median real income in 2006 dollars.

    d) repeat, graph, laugh at Farrar.
52. Icky Stinky 52

    21 October 2007 at 11:44 pm

    I think Muzza’s getting pissed at you, Robinsod! Muzza, chill out.

Links to post

1. John Key’s Brain Drain Dribble « KiwiBlogBlog: posted on 29 November 2007 at 1:07 pm
2. National and the wage gap at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 31 December 2007 at 10:54 pm
3. Labour with its claws out at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 19 February 2008 at 11:28 am
4. John Key’s plan to cut your pay at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 20 February 2008 at 10:59 am
5. How would Key make wages drop? at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 28 February 2008 at 10:20 pm
6. Focus on suicide at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 17 March 2008 at 9:08 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS