No plan to get Kiwis into work

Written By: - Date published: 3:02 pm, February 10th, 2010 - 64 comments
Categories: jobs, national/act government, unemployment - Tags:

Number of jobless Kiwis = 276,000

Number of jobs plans from Key Government = 0

Key can make all the vague references to faster growth and better economic performance that he likes but while the potential and skill of over a quarter of a million Kiwis is being wasted it will never happen. Getting people into work is the key to a healthy economy.

Key should have used this speech to announce a full employment policy and the means to get there, rather than tinkering with the tax system to put $500 more a week in his pocket.

64 comments on “No plan to get Kiwis into work ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    10 February 2010 at 3:30 pm

    But there is the cycleway and the 9 day fortnight policies that have saved or created jobs.

    Let me count how many, just a minute I need some extra help with the calculation and will have to take my shoes and socks off so that I have enough digits …

  2. Brett 2
    10 February 2010 at 3:40 pm

    Doesn’t the man donate most of his salary to charity?
    How could this put extra money in his pocket.

    • DeeDub 2.1
      10 February 2010 at 3:50 pm

      Does he? Big f**king deal! I would too if I was worth $50,000,000.00

      Do you even know what qualifies as ‘most’ of his salary?

      And anyway isn’t it a gigantic income tax write-off?

      Hmmm?

      • ParkDrive 2.1.1
        10 February 2010 at 10:26 pm

        Key’s not even worth 50 million any more.

        The bulk of that 50 mill was tied up in Merril Lynch shares. Since Bank America took over those shares, their value has plummeted.

        Keys a pauper selling the image of a prince. Of course he donates salary to Charity. His wife, Sweet Charity.

    • felix 2.2
      10 February 2010 at 4:09 pm

      This old chestnut again. Some munter brings it up every few weeks but so far no-one has ever provided a shred of evidence that he donates ANY of his salary.

      The nearest they can find is a “pledge” from the election campaign that he intended to donate “a good chunk” of his PM salary should he be elected.

      (Of course this was around the same time as he was promising tax cuts “north of $50 a week” for average income earners and promising not to increase GST and we know how good those promises are, don’t we?)

      Of course I’m sure Brett’s not one of those morons who’d be fooled by such blatant chicanery. So you got some proof, Brett? Got a quote, a link, a citation, any reason at all why anyone should believe you? You gonna be the first to break with tradition and come up with something?

      Or was it, as usual, just some crap you heard at kiwibog?

      • Brett 2.2.1
        10 February 2010 at 4:33 pm

        Jeez don’t get your tits in a twist
        I just took what I heard at face value and I really don’t see any reason to doubt it.
        As the he/she above you said he’s worth 50mill so what’s 300k in the overall scheme of things. Also he would get a hell of a lot more political mileage out of donating his salary than keeping it.

        • funkster 2.2.1.1
          10 February 2010 at 4:42 pm

          did you also take his words at face value when he said this: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/video.cfm?c_id=1&gal_objectid=10625326&gallery_id=109217

        • Clarke 2.2.1.2
          10 February 2010 at 4:42 pm

          Also he would get a hell of a lot more political mileage out of donating his salary than keeping it.

          You’re entirely right – which is why it’s quite surprising that Mr Photo Opportunity hasn’t got some headlines and good PR out of making the donation to his charity of choice public. Perhaps he’s being humble and simply wanting to keep out of the limelight. Perhaps I’ve fallen into a parallel universe ….

        • snoozer 2.2.1.3
          10 February 2010 at 4:55 pm

          so, Brett, if you think it’s just a political gesture then why kiss his arse for it? And as you pointed out, he has a much larger income from other sources, which he will be getting even larger tax cuts on.

          • Brett 2.2.1.3.1
            10 February 2010 at 5:18 pm

            To me it demonstrates the there is more to John Key than just money, he obviously feels that 50mill is plenty for him and his family.

            • Bright Red 2.2.1.3.1.1
              10 February 2010 at 5:24 pm

              if he thought there was more to life than money he would use that $50 million to set up a fund to create sustainable growth and jobs, and give most of his salary to it as well – he would still have plenty to live on.

              But he doesn’t.

            • felix 2.2.1.3.1.2
              10 February 2010 at 5:36 pm

              To me it demonstrates the there is more to John Key than just money, he obviously feels that 50mill is plenty for him and his family.

              You forgot to add “If what I said about him donating to charity were true

              You still haven’t shown that there was any factual basis to your statement and others have shown logically that it likely isn’t true.

              So you gonna show us why you persist with the myth?

              • Brett …
                10 February 2010 at 6:27 pm

                Don’t you think he would look a bit of a tool if he got up and announced that he’s donated his salary to charity people would automatically assume some sort of ulterior motive – some things are far better left unsaid.
                Anyway If it was bullshit I am sure the labour politicians would have let the public know by now especially if he’s getting political mileage out of it.

              • felix …
                10 February 2010 at 6:40 pm

                What political mileage?

                He hasn’t ever said he donates his salary – it’s only drongos like you who think he does.

                So you got any quotes or cites yet or still just blowing smoke?

              • Roger …
                10 February 2010 at 8:47 pm

                Brett, what does John Key’s alleged donations have to do with the number of unemployed that he is unwilling or unable to address?

        • felix 2.2.1.4
          10 February 2010 at 5:12 pm

          My tits are fine, thanks. If I seem short it’s because this gets brought up over and over again with absolutely nothing to back it up.

          You’re not new here. I don’t believe for a moment that you haven’t seen this discussed before. So why the pretense? You know as well as anyone that nothing ever came of that bit of pre-election PR. And as I pointed out, he has a rep for making pre-election promises he doesn’t keep.

          As Clarke says, if he was donating any of his salary we’d all know about it.

          So why don’t we, Brett? Are you a rational thinker or not? Why would Key hide his charity when, as you say, he could get so much mileage out of it?

          • Lanthanide 2.2.1.4.1
            11 February 2010 at 12:42 am

            I’m not new here and I haven’t seen it discussed before.

            • felix 2.2.1.4.1.1
              11 February 2010 at 3:09 am

              That was presumptious of me I suppose. It tends to come up at least once a month, maybe more. The wording is always strikingly similar.

      • Rex Widerstrom 2.2.2
        10 February 2010 at 6:05 pm

        Come now felix, that bastion of honesty and integrity Micael Lhaws has repeatedly claimed that he donates all his Mayoral salary to chairty and repeatedly refused to reveal what “charities” that might be.

        The closest we got was a hint that he spent some on the “Mayoral Mile”, an event designed to showcase him, named after his office, and involving an activity (running) he personally enjoys.

        And a few cocktail parties at which he controls the guest list but which are billed as “civic functions”.

        Having been set such a high benchmark, one can’t expect Key to measure up 😀

        • The Voice of Reason 2.2.2.1
          10 February 2010 at 8:16 pm

          Spot on, Rex. Laws earns enough from his fulltime job as a radio jock to cover the part time mayoralty. The dog whistle that goes with it is that if the voters of Whangaz elect some else, it’ll cost them more on their rates.

          Of course, his manic focus on no rate rises means the next generation are going to have to cop bigger increases in the future to repair the damage he’s doing now. Hmmm, that’s pretty much Key’s go too.

          BTW, Rex, didn’t you used to shill for Laws? I might be barking up the wrong tree, but I seemed to recall you were around when he was hanging with Winnie.

          • Rex Widerstrom 2.2.2.1.1
            11 February 2010 at 12:29 am

            Geezus have some consideration for my blood pressure TVoR 😛

            Since almost everyone has heard it before and any moment now gingercrush will come along and claim it’s all I ever talk about, everyone but TVoR please skip ahead to the next comment.

            – I “shilled” (as you so delightfully term it :-P) for Winston when NZF was committed to abiding by it’s Founding Principles in which I strongly believed (and still do). We were up at around 30% in the polls and doing perfectly well without Lhaws.

            – For reasons still not understood by any of us around at the time, Winston opened the door to Lhaws to waka-jump. I and a number of other spokespeople and advisers (I was both) counselled against it.

            – When the “Antoinette Beck affair” surfaced in Hawkes Bay, I went up to investigate and report back to Winston. Unfortunately some tactical idiot from ACT went and blabbed this to the media.

            – Winston sided with Lhaws and even when the ,latter was forced to resign over said affair, employed him on the staff and handed over the running of the 1996 campaign, the Parliamentary office and the strings controlling Winston’s utterances. I was stripped of my spokesperson role, as were other “rebels”.

            – There followed six uncomfortable months in which I holed up in my office trying, with other senior people (including Tau Henare) to find a way to get rid of Lhaws, whilst Lhaws derailed the policies we’d stood for till then and watched the polls plummet to 13%. Little did I know Lhaws has promised my assiatant, Deborah Morris, a Cabinet post if she relayed what went on at these meetings.

            – Eventually I was sacked. In his only communicatioin with me in 6 months, Winston said “If you don’t like it (what Lhaws was up to) fuck off”. I sued for wrongful dismissal and Parliamentary Services paid out a very generous five figure settlement.

            – A few years later I gave a bit of moral support and technical help to the originators of the “Laws Watch” website, which led Lhaws to launch a scurrilous Ron Mark-like attack on me via his website.

            So no, I’ve never shilled for Lhaws, and would rather you pluck the hairs from my testicles one by one than contemplate such a career move.

    • Jim MacDonald 2.3
      10 February 2010 at 5:29 pm

      ‘Charity begins at home’ – I am mulling on this phrase and wondering whether to email the PM if he lives by this, and if so, what his definition of ‘home’ is.

      • felix 2.3.1
        10 February 2010 at 5:40 pm

        Definitely not the Helensville one. Maybe the Parnell one.

        But probably the Hawaii one. Remember how pleased he was to be able to spend up in New york? Cos you know, they really need it, being hit by the recession and all.

  3. gingercrush 3
    10 February 2010 at 3:44 pm

    LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE.

    * Mining our economic potential. – Jobs, export dollars.
    * Tax Cuts – Jobs and investment.
    * Water Storage and Irrigation – Jobs, exports, infrastructure
    * Red Tape and Aquaculture – Jobs, exports.
    * Science & Innovation – Education, Research, Jobs, Exports
    * Restructuring of Crown Research Institute – Education, Research, Jobs, Exports
    * Law on capital restructuring of Fonterra – Jobs, Investments, massive amounts of added-on value exports, money goes back to New Zealanders and even more jobs.
    * Capital Market Development Taskforce – Investment which leads to jobs which also means investment in New Zealand companies which means more taxes paid which leads us to even more jobs.

    • Bright Red 3.1
      10 February 2010 at 3:48 pm

      Those aren’t jobs plans. Those are things that Key hopes will create some economic activity in 5 years time and a few jobs in the process.

      The Green New Deal is a jobs package

      • gingercrush 3.1.1
        10 February 2010 at 3:57 pm

        Obama’s stimulus/jobs package is doing so well is it? The one example you can use is Australia. 1. They were never in a recession. 2. They certainly were not in recession prior to the world-wide recession. 3. The goods they export are always in demand. 4. They had a conservative government running the show for the 12 years prior.

        In regards to the Green New Deal. It was interesting and more than Labour has ever tried to do. In fact Labour never offered anything prior to the election and we’re no closer to knowing what they thought. Goff himself barely mentions jobs. He’s too busy claiming this year is a boom year and we’re having 4% growth. Anyway, I found the Green New Deal problematic and that many of the projects they wished to undertake wouldn’t be able to done as swiftly or provide as many jobs as they report them to.

        • Bright Red 3.1.1.1
          10 February 2010 at 4:16 pm

          Obama’s stimulus is going well. They were far deeper in the crap than we were, now their unemployment has dropped from 10.1% to 9.7%, and their economy grew 1.5% in the last quarter.

          How are we doing without a stimulus package? Oh yeah, rising unemployment, and 0.2% growth below population growth.

          get it right ginge.

          • snoozer 3.1.1.1.1
            10 February 2010 at 4:22 pm

            ha! A little knowledge goes a long way, eh ginger?

          • gingercrush 3.1.1.1.2
            10 February 2010 at 5:01 pm

            So their unemployment is 2.5% above New Zealand and a 1.5% growth? So what. That is terrible. His stimulus is still doing terrible. It completely stuffed up the projections of the jobs that would be saved.

            New Zealand has a projected growth rate of 2.5% for this year. By your point of view that would be a success? Anyway isn’t the lefts motto GDP meaningless? Likewise you’re saying any drop in unemployment is good. As that should happen this year too by your thinking that is amazing.

            • Bright Red 3.1.1.1.2.1
              10 February 2010 at 5:10 pm

              They started the recession with higher unemployment, they have structurally higher unemployment than we did under Labour, and their rate is falling while ours is rising.

              Like I say, they had a far rougher recession than we did. Remember, our recession was essentially just the spillover from their recession.

              You misread – 1.5% is the growth in the quarter, not the annual rate. 1.5% growth in a single quarter is impressive, it’s 6% per annum bit better than weak arse 2.5%. You know what Key’s quarterly growth record is? -0.9, -0.8. 0.2, 0.2.

              I will welcome any drop in unemployment but the battle is not won while over quarter of a million Kiwis who want to work are having their potential is being wasted every day.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2
        11 February 2010 at 1:49 am

        Get it right BR, those are thing JK hopes will put more money in his pocket.

    • pollywog 3.2
      10 February 2010 at 4:05 pm

      Right then, i’m off to Fiordland to do a spot of mining…

      …i may be some time

    • Sam 3.3
      10 February 2010 at 4:26 pm

      What planet are you on? How do you think any of those things will create jobs?

      • gingercrush 3.3.1
        10 February 2010 at 5:08 pm

        I guess you escaped the time when Helen Clark allowed Fonterra to be formed. You want to know why we enjoyed some very good times during her reign? Fonterra and the money that gave to farmers who ultimately spent in the provinces who then made their way to cities. It provided jobs at every point. Its still one of the reason many provinces in this country out-perform cities when it comes to unemployment.

        Fonterra needs to grow as a co-operative into more value-added products. That is dependent on the government. Thus government action does create jobs.

        Likewise, Aquaculture creates jobs as does mining as does science and innovation or were you asleep at the wheel?

    • Clarke 3.4
      10 February 2010 at 4:31 pm

      * Tax Cuts Jobs and investment.

      National has already delivered some tax cuts in 2009, so why did unemployment increase instead of going down? If tax cuts were the universal panacea for job creation, how come there are nearly 60,000 more Kiwis out of work since the first round of tax cuts occurred?

    • Fisiani 3.5
      10 February 2010 at 4:41 pm

      Also building prisons and staffing them. equals more jobs

      Raising education standards equals more jobs

      Cutting job losses from projected 120,000 to just 60,000

      • Clarke 3.5.1
        10 February 2010 at 4:44 pm

        Raising education standards equals more jobs

        Really? Only, those jobs will be back-office ones collating and analysing the standards, rather than “front line” positions, and I thought National was against those …

      • snoozer 3.5.2
        10 February 2010 at 4:54 pm

        source on the projected 120,000 job losses?

        A real source, actual official forecasts, like Treasury.

      • Rex Widerstrom 3.5.3
        10 February 2010 at 6:44 pm

        Building prisons can’t count amongst “achievements” for any government.

        If you’re a righty, it means crime has run rampant and more and more people are becoming criminals, preying on even greater numbers of law abiding citizens.

        If you’re a lefty it means the state is failing greater numbers of people in terms of giving them an education, a job, a stable life and above all, a vision of their future.

        In reality the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The only real point of difference between left and right seems to be whether the people inside the razor wire, and their families, are seen as secondary victims.

        But building criminal warehouses amounts to erecting a monument to your own (i.e. the government’s) failure and to the lives ruined by crime.

        • prism 3.5.3.1
          10 February 2010 at 7:23 pm

          Hear, hear this man for Prime Minister (or the position of someone that the PM would listen to, either would be good).

      • Macro 3.5.4
        10 February 2010 at 9:34 pm

        national standards was financed by CUTTING science art and physical education advisors from schools. no jobs created there sonny boy!

        what a good way to create more jobs! lets have more crime! how can we do that? Oh I know lets have more unemployment!

        Your last statistic is clearly just a figment of your rather feeble imagination.

  4. big bruv 4
    10 February 2010 at 3:46 pm

    Full employment policy…..

    Yep, that would only cost us another five or six billion a month.

    No wonder you people are the opposition.

    • Bright Red 4.1
      10 February 2010 at 3:51 pm

      care to provide costings in that 5 or 6 billion?

      The fact is the only source of wealth is people working. 276,000 is a waste of resources.

      And it costs the government both in benefits and lost tax when people are unemployed.

    • Clarke 4.2
      10 February 2010 at 4:34 pm

      276,000 people x $48,000 per annum median income = $1.104 billion/month. You’re only out by a factor of five or six, and that’s actually quite good for a Rightie! 🙂

    • Pete 4.3
      10 February 2010 at 4:40 pm

      big bruv,

      Almost every post you write is littered with the “no wonder you people are in opposition” line.

      Come off it.

      We, the Standard readers and contributors (as the critical nature of the posts and comments atest) are not part of the political parties that make up the opposition benches, nor are we in full agreement with what they do or stand for (as is your position with the sitting government, I’m sure).

      Please give it up, it is getting old and typically adds nothing of any value to your comments.

      You are dreary mate.

      Kthxbai

    • lprent 4.4
      10 February 2010 at 4:56 pm

      No wonder you people are the opposition.

      Actually we’re not the ‘opposition’. Please read the about.

      There are few MPs writing comments on this site, apart from a few refugees from Red Alert and frogblog. An opposition in a strict political meaning for NZ is the group of MP’s in parliament who are not part of the the government. In a coalition arrangement, oppositions may be part of the government as well (eg read Act and the the MP’s agreements with National).

      To be precise (and you know how I like to be be accurate), you appear to be from previous statements, even more in opposition to the current government than the majority who write on this site.

      So I’d guess you’d be aware of exactly why you’re the opposition. I’d probably start with looking at your inaccurate estimates (as someone pointed out above).

  5. Draco T Bastard 5
    10 February 2010 at 4:04 pm

    No plan to get Kiwis into work

    Of course not – that would increase wages, not lower them.

  6. Quayyy 6
    10 February 2010 at 4:37 pm

    ‘full employment’ ??

    ha – haven’t seen that as a policy since the Muldoon days

  7. JD 7
    10 February 2010 at 4:44 pm

    Really this whole mindset of the govnt ‘creating’ jobs is retarded. I’m pretty sure that Key could give everyone on the dole the title of ‘policy analyst’ and pay them 70k p.a. while running up a deficit of trillions of dollars to pay for it all. Is this what you mean? Good luck in paying it back in the future while trying to social services dumbasses.

    Do you people have any idea how jobs are ‘created”? You’re speaking like they can be conjured out of thin air at the stroke of a pen. It’s the end result of business responding to increased demand and finding themselves unable to meet that demand with their existing capacity. But then again I’m talking about real sustainable jobs in business that produce things that people will pay for so maybe you have a different conception of what work is.

    “How are we doing without a stimulus package? ”

    What do you call borrowing 240 mil a week and bringing forward capital expenditure then?

    • Clarke 7.1
      10 February 2010 at 4:48 pm

      What do you call borrowing 240 mil a week and bringing forward capital expenditure then?

      We call that “paying back your corporate mates for giving the National Party election donations”, or perhaps Think Big Mark II.

    • snoozer 7.2
      10 February 2010 at 4:52 pm

      jd. The capital is sitting idle, the labour is sitting idle, the private market is failing to use them, the government should intervene.

      As long as you put people into wealth-creating work, it is costless, in fact it benefits the country – you get more output and don’t have to bear the cost fo the unemployed.

      In particular, it should be creating jobs that create more capital. The next threat to growth (when it finally gets a move on) will be capacity constraints.

  8. randal 8
    10 February 2010 at 4:52 pm

    of course there is no work.
    if there was people would be signing on.
    not hanging round at home collecting the benefit.
    to have work means providing jobs and as there are no jobs then the ugly dark side of the tories comes out.
    hectoring and harrassing unfortunates using the shibboleths from a bygone age.
    see the thing is you cant buy anything made by john key inc.
    this lot are functionally illiterate and licking their chops at three years of bashing unfortunates.

  9. JD 9
    10 February 2010 at 5:13 pm

    “As long as you put people into wealth-creating work, it is costless, in fact it benefits the country you get more output and don’t have to bear the cost fo the unemployed.”

    No argument there but the point I’m making is that there has to be a demand for what you produce which was the point I was making about policy analysts.

    There is more to it than simply increasing output and expecting NZ to become prosperous.

    Randel, are you drunk?

    • Bright Red 9.1
      10 February 2010 at 5:21 pm

      you obviously don’t make them policy analysts, don’t be a dork.

      Demand is there, if you’ve got poverty, you’ve got demand for goods and services. That those aren’t be provided is market failure. Put people into work producing those goods and services.

  10. JD 10
    10 February 2010 at 5:24 pm

    Umm I think the idea is to produce something that people are willing to pay for thereby generating a profit which allows you to pay your employees. Do you have a problem with this?

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1
      10 February 2010 at 7:04 pm

      Um, a profit only happens after the employees have been paid.

      • Herodotus 10.1.1
        10 February 2010 at 7:07 pm

        Not if after the profit, dividends and bonus have been paid out THEN the coy goes under. Re US finance coys, and that Texas utility coy.