The unemployment curse

151 comments on “The unemployment curse ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Erentz 1

   2 February 2013 at 9:23 am

   So I’ve been wondering if surely there isn’t a better solution than to just close these plants because of the “high dollar”. I mean the implication is but for that they were profitable and would be profitable again if the high dollar went away. Is the intention of these companies to reopen the factory when they day comes? Or is the belief that high dollar is now permanent and so the factories are closed forever?
   • CV - Real Labour 1.1

     2 February 2013 at 9:33 am

     No one is able to forecast when we will get a Govt willing to do something effective about our over-valued dollar, which makes it impossible for a plant owner to plan and budget for re-starting a facility like this.

     And when manufacturing plants close they are typically broken down and machines sold off or scrapped. In addition, key personnel who know how to run the plant and maintain the equipment are usually dispersed far and wide. There are always some pieces of equipment which are hard to mothball safely or effectively and are usually very difficult to start up again after long periods of disuse. The remaining customers of the plant will have gone into new contracts with alternative suppliers.

     In this case a skeleton staff look like they are being kept on by the new owners either to assist in the breakdown of the plant for scrap or possibly to keep some core capability to enable the plant to be onsold as a going concern.

     Basically, the capabilities and expertise associated with things like our manufacturing plants and our fighter wings, once they go away, they never come back again. And certainly they don’t come back without paying huge sums of money to rebuild the capability.
     • rosy 1.1.1

       2 February 2013 at 9:52 am

       “And when manufacturing plants close they are typically broken down and machines sold off or scrapped.”

       I wonder if the company was bought for just this eventuality. Run the plant down then strip and sell. If that’s the case, then the place will never make money unless a cash-rich firm that can upgrade plant to increase productivity per worker buys it.

       The way I understand it a lack of investment in plant and technology is one of the main reasons for New Zealand’s low productivity despite having some of the longest working hours in the OECD.
       • CV - Real Labour 1.1.1.1

         2 February 2013 at 9:58 am

         The way I understand it a lack of investment in plant and technology is one of the main reasons for New Zealand’s low productivity despite having some of the longest working hours in the OECD.

         This is correct.

         I wonder if the company was bought for just this eventuality. Run the plant down then strip and sell

         Not in this case is my understanding – the Japanese owners had a long term view on the plant but finally couldn’t tolerate the high dollar and deteriorating market conditions any longer.
         • rosy 1.1.1.1.1

           2 February 2013 at 10:06 am

           ” the Japanese owners had a long term view on the plant but finally couldn’t tolerate the high dollar and deteriorating market conditions any longer”

           Double tragedy then, it’s bad enough having rundown factories, without having a good one non-viable. It increases the reasons for manufacturers to delay investment in plant if even good companies can’t survive the impact of the high dollar. Make the closures of other, less productive businesses almost inevitable.
           • Poission 1.1.1.1.1.1

             2 February 2013 at 11:37 am

             In this case,it was not the lack of technological investment ,mostly it was due to the higher exchange rate.

             In the broader case,however it is found that the decrease in productivity following banking financial crisis is ubiquitous globally ie it is a usual observation in each of the 60 banking crisis since 1980.

             This is mostly due a decrease in investment in machinery and systems,due to enhanced risk perception by the Beaks ( who make lending harder for non property assets) or in other words they increase the sensitivity of the aftermath.eg Broadbent 2012

             http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/speeches/2012/speech599.pdf
2. bad12 2

   2 February 2013 at 9:42 am

   Wait up folks, Slippery the Prime Minister just rode into town on a bleached blond blind donkey called Brucie claiming (a) yes the NZ dollar is way over valued, and (b) National have ‘a plan’ to create jobs,

   There was tho a couple of things missing from all that as they cut short the interview, then again i think that was the sum total of the pronouncement from on high,

   Missing was exactly ‘what’ the Slippery lead National government plan to do to achieve a lower valued dollar,(talk it down perhaps ha ha ha), and missing was any indication of what this ‘plan’ to create jobs entails, (perhaps the Slippery little Shyster has taken to sending such info by telepathy),

   Translation, As Prime Minister and a friend of the international speculators who make millions of dollars a week from dicking round with the free floating NZ dollar i have a conundrum of conflicting interests to evaluate but as the free floating over-valued NZ dollar doesn’t actually hurt anyone i rub shoulders with i plan on doing sweet f**k-all about it,

   Translation2, look i am sick of you lot moaning about a few of you,(185,000), not having a job, we here at National have had a plan for quite some time to get you lazy whining Kiwi’s into work if you would only just listen,

   My Minister of removing people from their welfare entitlements Paula told you all last year that there are plenty of jobs on ‘TradeMe’ just like i told Her to, so fuck off and look there for a job instead of expecting Me as the Prime Minister to spend my time creating the economic conditions which create jobs, quite frankly i have better things to do with my time than pander to you lot…
   • bad12 2.1

     2 February 2013 at 10:16 am

     Ooops, there’s a post on this very topic, ”the curse of unemployment”, both of us typing at the same time,

     Anyone want to move this comment over to that post???… [Done – r0b]
3. Andre 3

   2 February 2013 at 10:06 am

   This is a perfect example of the short sight of our government .The loss of our 100% pure is going to destroy our economy .This product as many others is a green product . A premium product in the future green economy.If we moved to “Pure” products we would have a future . NZ could hold there heads high once again. Key is selling NZ……. Not” Selling” NZ
4. infused 4

   2 February 2013 at 10:12 am

   Most plants are old as shit. Dunlops had machines from the 70’s there. It only produced 7000 tires a day. A China factory, with similar staff would do, 70,000.

   It wasn’t the high dollar though at the time, it was the shipping distances to get rubber in and tires out which is why there was no investment.
   • CV - Real Labour 4.1

     2 February 2013 at 10:18 am

     Funny thing is, shipping phosphate rock to NZ then milk back to the other side of the world doesn’t seem to be a problem.

     And our success in the dairy industry comes from a willingness to invest millions of dollars in new technology, plant and equipment every year.

     BTW we’re never going to be as low a cost producer as China because our workers want more than $2/hr pay, and we like having environmental standards which stop our major cities being smogged out.
     • infused 4.1.1

       2 February 2013 at 10:54 am

       Yeah no kidding we are not going to compete. Hence why all this manufacturing was going to go some day, regardless.
       • CV - Real Labour 4.1.1.1

         2 February 2013 at 10:58 am

         You’re sorta an idiot aren’t you?

         Yeah no kidding we are not going to compete on low price or mass volume.

         FIFY, dropkick. But maybe you want a low paying service economy full of McJobs?
         • infused 4.1.1.1.1

           2 February 2013 at 12:44 pm

           We are a low paying service economy. Calling me an idiot.
           • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1.1

             2 February 2013 at 12:45 pm

             I’m calling you an idiot for propogating the causes and the continuation of such. Idiot.

             Seriously, what loyalty do you have to your country and your fellow NZers? Any?
             • infused …

               2 February 2013 at 12:46 pm

               It’s never going to change, get use to it or move country.

               Nice edit. It’s not about loyalty. I see it for what it is. More emotion please.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 2 February 2013 at 12:48 pm

                 Meh.
               • Jackal …

                 2 February 2013 at 12:55 pm

                 Change is dependent on what type of government we have in power. New Zealand has vast resources and is reasonable self sufficient, meaning that our low waged economy can improve dramatically. That improvement to our economy could also improve incomes across the board. In fact improving incomes will in many ways improve the economy, and therefore allow for an increase in better paid jobs. What really needs to happen is the opposite to Nationals apoplectic policy direction since 2008.
                 • infused …

                   2 February 2013 at 12:56 pm

                   What resources are you talking about exactly?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     2 February 2013 at 1:01 pm

                     The same resources for extraction and exploitation as the totally mistaken growth focused neolib Reserve Bank Governor Wheeler mentioned in his speech.
                   • Jackal …

                     2 February 2013 at 1:10 pm

                     That’s a giant leap to take CV when resources could include the people of the country as well. Although I haven’t read his speech, I doubt the Reserve Bank Governor Wheeler was referencing resources in the same way I was, which makes yet another one of your comments defunct!

                     New Zealand has a lot of resources and the fact that the right wings agenda has tricked people into believing there’s scarcity is what’s causing all the misery. Why for instance are there children that have to be fed in schools when we’re one of the world’s biggest producers of food?
                 • Mike …

                   3 February 2013 at 12:25 am

                   “Change is dependent on what type of government we have in power”

                   Not since the 80’s.

                   The illusion of democracy. “If voting made a difference they wouldn’t let us do it.” (Can’t remember who’s quote that was)
               • felixviper …

                 4 February 2013 at 5:25 am

                 “It’s never going to change, get use to it or move country.”

                 ambushiss for new zillin
     • rosy 4.1.2

       2 February 2013 at 11:00 am

       “BTW we’re never going to be as low a cost producer as China because our workers want more than $2/hr pay, and we like having environmental standards which stop our major cities being smogged out.”

       And our currency is not pegged at an artificially low rate against the U.S. dollar to make our exports cheaper…
       • Colonial Viper 4.1.2.1

         2 February 2013 at 12:29 pm

         🙂
     • Mike 4.1.3

       3 February 2013 at 12:28 am

       “BTW we’re never going to be as low a cost producer as China because our workers want more than $2/hr pay,”

       Which is why they create private prisons, then force prisoners to work for virtually nothing.

       Nearly 40% of everything manufactured in the USA now is made in a prison. Easy source of slave labour and politically winnable as the majority of our sleepy population thinks prisoners should be forced to work.
       • Pete 4.1.3.1

         3 February 2013 at 4:15 pm

         Under Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade:

         Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures … (e) relating to the products of prison labour

         The United States has such a provision preventing the import of products of prison labour (that doesn’t prevent them from exploiting it for domestic consumption, as you point out). So do we as a matter of fact. I would imagine most of our trading partners have such a law on the books. Prison labour won’t be about manufacturing, it will be about service jobs. Call centres, for example, or park maintenance. Undercutting the jobs of law-abiding New Zealanders certainly.
         • CV - Real Labour 4.1.3.1.1

           3 February 2013 at 4:36 pm

           I’m sure we can expect Gov Scott Walker of Wisconsin to pay us a visit shortly, explaining how he laid off public parks and roads workers and replaced them with free prison labour.

           And I’d thought that the USA had abolished slavery.
5. Bill 5

   2 February 2013 at 11:56 am

   Bigger picture. Those jobs aren’t coming back and many more are going to disappear. Double dip and triple dip ‘recessions’ appear to be the order of day. (Can’t possibly have a depression on the menu afterall)

   High time to stop fucking around and introduce a universal social wage that people can freely choose to live on. An income we can augment by taking up worthwhile work if we want to.

   There really isn’t anything wrong with joblessness beyond the negative acculturation we’ve subjected ourselves to.

   Meanwhile, there’s a lot wrong with soul destroying, disempowering, bullshit jobs. There’s a lot wrong with necessary but shit jobs attracting low pay. And there’s a whole lot wrong with the fact that the integrity and cohesion of our communities was destroyed as a mere aside to the general and enforced pursuit of beads and baubles and ‘getting ahead’.

   Unemployment isn’t a curse. The coercive economic environment and the pressure to do stuff – often utterly meaningless or destructive stuff that essentially only allows others to make money off our time and energy – that’s the curse.

   And curses rely on belief…
   • Draco T Bastard 5.1

     2 February 2013 at 12:08 pm

     +1
   • Colonial Viper 5.2

     2 February 2013 at 12:21 pm

     The growth economy is NOT coming back. The bullshit of a strong growing “green” economy with many high tech jobs around the corner is just a virtual carrot to lead the masses on with.
     • Jackal 5.2.1

       2 February 2013 at 1:01 pm

       What are basing that assertion on CV?

       You’re in fact arguing against research done by the Political Economy Research Institue at the University of Massachusetts, that shows investment into eco friendly projects provides more than twice as many jobs as the same investment into polluting industries.

       But this wouldn’t be the first time you’ve blathered your ignorance all over the place.
       • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.1

         2 February 2013 at 1:06 pm

         Sure mate, let’s see who is right over the next 5 years. Real growth per capita, after inflation in NZ. I’m betting 1% or less.

         But this wouldn’t be the first time you’ve blathered your ignorance all over the place.

         Coming from you, this is a fucking badge of honour.
         • Jackal 5.2.1.1.1

           2 February 2013 at 1:12 pm

           CV

           Sure mate, let’s see who is right over the next 5 years.

           The Political Economy Research Institue at the University of Massachusetts has already proven my point moron!
           • geoff 5.2.1.1.1.1

             2 February 2013 at 1:20 pm

             Jackal, wasn’t your point that, given an amount of investment, ‘green’ jobs provides double the number of jobs as non-‘green’ jobs? My interpretation of CV’s point is that there probably won’t be very much investment in either green or non green industries and therefore very few new jobs or growth of the economy.
             Maybe I’ve got the wrong end of the stick.
             • Jackal …

               2 February 2013 at 1:30 pm

               CV wrote:

               The bullshit of a strong growing “green” economy with many high tech jobs around the corner is just a virtual carrot to lead the masses on with.

               geoff wrote:

               My interpretation of CV’s point is that there probably won’t be very much investment in either green or non green industries and therefore very few new jobs or growth of the economy.

               Investment into green jobs is more than twice as beneficial to the economy compared to investing in polluting industries.

               To say that there will be no money available to invest is clearly wrong, although the fact that there will be less is a given after Nationals borrowing regime.

               If there’s 1% growth from a green economy in hard economic times, there would only be 0.5% or less growth from keeping the status quo.

               That moron badge suits you btw CV… I wouldn’t wear it in public though.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 2 February 2013 at 1:38 pm

                 If there’s 1% growth from a green economy in hard economic times, there would only be 0.5% or less growth from keeping the status quo.

                 Thanks for agreeing with me that real growth per capita is over.

                 Geoff – cheers.
                 • Jackal …

                   2 February 2013 at 2:36 pm

                   Just in case you didn’t notice, I haven’t agreed with you at all CV.

                   As there’s been around 0.5% (stagnant) growth since 2010 under National who has solely focused on subsidies for polluting industries, there would be around 1% initial growth when green initiatives kicked in under the same economical conditions.

                   However that initial growth (depending on what government incentives were in place) would increase exponentially, because with around 100,000 more jobs, people would spend more thus increasing turnover. That spending would also create other jobs, which would further benefit the economy.

                   You also need to factor in the other policies the opposition has proposed that will also create employment… The money saved from having less welfare dependence and more people paying taxes could then be used by the government to further invigorate the economy.

                   Your crystal ball must be pretty amazing if you can categorically say that won’t result in any real growth CV.
                   • CV - Real Labour …

                     2 February 2013 at 3:42 pm

                     Your crystal ball must be pretty amazing if you can categorically say that won’t result in any real growth CV.

                     Titanic meet iceberg. No crystal ball required.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     2 February 2013 at 4:01 pm

                     That spending would also create other jobs, which would further benefit the economy.

                     And thus continue to trash the environment.
                   • Jackal …

                     2 February 2013 at 4:10 pm

                     CV

                     Titanic meet iceberg. No crystal ball required.

                     You just described a historic event that has nothing to do with green growth and how it will benefit the economy CV.

                     Draco T Bastard

                     And thus continue to trash the environment.

                     That depends on what other initiatives are implemented. If you combine a green growth agenda with better manufacturing practices, better distribution systems and better recycling and waste disposal systems, then the environment won’t be trashed.

                     Why not have an electrified rail network and electric cars fueled by clean energy sources for instance?
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     2 February 2013 at 4:52 pm

                     A growth agenda will always trash the environment. Can’t get away from that.

                     Unless you want to shift that growth to the Moon.

                     Why not have an electrified rail network and electric cars fueled by clean energy sources for instance?

                     I’m in favour of that (except for the cars – far too inefficient) and I’ve said so several times but we still can’t have growth. Stable state economy with a stable population. Anything else brings disaster.
                   • Jackal …

                     2 February 2013 at 5:54 pm

                     Draco T Bastard

                     I’m in favour of that and I’ve said so several times but we still can’t have growth.

                     Green growth offers economic benefits with little detrimental impact on the environment. For instance, the electrification of our road transport fueled by renewable energy sources could potentially cut CO2 emissions by 42%.

                     Surely you can’t be arguing that reducing CO2 emissions is bad for the environment Draco T Bastard?

                     Except for the cars – far too inefficient.

                     Rubbish! There are many electric cars around that are highly efficient.

                     Stable state economy with a stable population. Anything else brings disaster.

                     We will need to have economic growth in order to generate surpluses to be able to service the huge debt National has mismanaged us into.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     2 February 2013 at 5:54 pm

                     “A growth agenda will always trash the environment. Can’t get away from that”

                     No it won’t and yes you can. A growth agenda can accommodate sustainable industry like wind, tide and solar. Granted we haven’t made that move yet but a sustainable industry of renewable energy under the capitalist model is easily obtainable.
                   • CV - Real Labour …

                     2 February 2013 at 6:04 pm

                     Keep holding on to the hopium mate.

                     Electric cars lol
                   • Jackal …

                     2 February 2013 at 6:31 pm

                     I direct your attention to WhaleOilBeefHooked, where your anti-electric car mentality will be welcomed with open arms CV.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     2 February 2013 at 7:41 pm

                     Surely you can’t be arguing that reducing CO2 emissions is bad for the environment Draco T Bastard?

                     Nope, what I’m against is believing that BAU will provide anything different from what we have.

                     Rubbish! There are many electric cars around that are highly efficient.

                     Cars are horribly inefficient no matter what motive power they use.

                     We will need to have economic growth in order to generate surpluses to be able to service the huge debt National has mismanaged us into.

                     Or we just write them off.

                     A growth agenda can accommodate sustainable industry like wind, tide and solar.

                     A growth agenda requires growth. In fact, it specifically requires population growth and that means use of more and more resources and a shrinking of the natural environment. Which means that there isn’t enough resources available and that the environment will be trashed just so that we can have a few more digital zeroes in a few peoples bank accounts.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     2 February 2013 at 9:21 pm

                     I direct your attention to WhaleOilBeefHooked, where your anti-electric car mentality will be welcomed with open arms CV.

                     There are over 3M road vehicles in NZ.

                     Give me an estimate when you think that 5% of them (150,000) will be electric cars.

                     Also, please tell me where the lithium for the batteries and the steel from the chassis will come from.

                     btw DTB is right. Growth means accelerated destruction of the environment.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     2 February 2013 at 10:08 pm

                     “btw DTB is right. Growth means accelerated destruction of the environment.”

                     Not at all. That is bullshit.

                     A mass produced wind/tide/solar effort will accelerate growth immeasurably. Energy with less effort. A huge leap forward. Growth.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     2 February 2013 at 10:50 pm

                     http://www.slideshare.net/amenning/growth-in-a-finite-world-sustainability-and-the-exponential-function#
                   • TheContrarian …

                     2 February 2013 at 11:13 pm

                     You have linked to that twice on this page it seems but it doesn’t address that question, or discussion if you will, as posed. That “A growth agenda will always trash the environment. Can’t get away from that” or as CV said “Growth means accelerated destruction of the environment.”

                     Firstly you haven’t defined growth – growth of what?
                     I am going to assume you mean growth as in profit (which is what I think you mean) but not trashing the environment and having the least wasteful method of producing energy would be very very profitable indeed. Therefore profit, growth, does not necessitate environmental destruction.
                   • Mike …

                     3 February 2013 at 12:35 am

                     Green growth (whatever that means) just like any form of economic growth under our current monetary and economic system is unsustainable.

                     The first law of sustainability:

                     ‘Population growth and / or growth in the consumption of resources cannot be sustained.’

                     – Our current system is fueled completely by exponentially increasing consumption, fueled by a growing population. How does “green growth” change that? How does “green growth” get around the first law of sustainability?
                   • Jackal …

                     3 February 2013 at 10:13 am

                     Colonial Viper

                     Give me an estimate when you think that 5% of them (150,000) will be electric cars.

                     New Zealand is one of the slowest countries in the world in uptake of electric vehicles. Despite both National and Labour promising subsidies to promote electric and low-emission cars, neither political party delivered while they were in power. Without a government policy to ensure more electric cars are purchased, uptake will remain low.

                     Also, please tell me where the lithium for the batteries and the steel from the chassis will come from.

                     While it’s true that there’s not enough lithium available on the entire planet to make enough batteries to replace every gasoline-powered car with electric ones, there is enough to replace a large amount of them. Combined with electrified rail networks, electric vehicles can have a huge impact on reducing CO2 emissions.

                     Where does steel come from… You’re a fucking moron sometimes CV.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     3 February 2013 at 6:27 pm

                     Firstly you haven’t defined growth – growth of what?

                     Growth in the market (I would have thought that was obvious from the context of the discussion). It’s the total foundation of the Export Led Recovery that the politicians keep telling us about and that is also a total impossibility because the world and the limits we need to live within are finite.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     3 February 2013 at 9:48 pm

                     Wanna have a go at this, Draco?

                     http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-02022013/#comment-582948
       • geoff 5.2.1.2

         2 February 2013 at 1:06 pm

         That may be so but 2 times zero is still zero.
       • Bill 5.2.1.3

         2 February 2013 at 1:53 pm

         So throw away all machinery and get back to muscle power. That’ll employ a heap of people. And then if we imagine that there is nothing at all wrong with a market economy; that it’s just a bit grimey but that after a quick wipe down it’ll be revealed to be all shiney and good and benevolent…

         Now, the only thing wrong with that is that it’s obvious bollox. And it’s really no different to prescriptions for ‘Green Growth’.
         • Jackal 5.2.1.3.1

           2 February 2013 at 2:59 pm

           That’s right Bill… Those evil greenies want you riding a horse and cart and cutting maize with a blunt sickle until the sun sets. After they take 99% of your earnings in taxes and force you to smoke large amounts of marijuana, they’re going to just wipe away the failure of neoliberalism with their cloth caps all the while smiling and singing kumbaya.
         • Bill 5.2.1.3.2

           2 February 2013 at 3:32 pm

           It’s you who seems to believe that getting more people into employment is a mark of success for ‘Green Growth’. I’m merely pointing out that that’s a bollox mark of success. It means nothing. And ‘Green Growth’ does nothing to address the problems of production and distribution being undertaken in a market economy. What was it you were unable to get about that point as I made in my previous comment?
           • Jackal 5.2.1.3.2.1

             2 February 2013 at 4:04 pm

             Having less unemployed people is a sign of success Bill, especially in terms of proper governance. You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that some green initiatives are directly concerned with production and distribution systems.

             Another thing you’re failing to understand is that green growth can be undertaken within the confines of a market economy, in fact it already is to a degree. The problem is that Nationals focus is on promoting industries that pollute, have little return on investment and don’t create much employment opportunities for New Zealanders.

             What the Green party is proposing will in fact be good for a more planned economy, because the “free” market neoliberal crap John Key is dishing out has totally failed us.

             The Greens aren’t proposing employment for the sake of creating jobs… Investment in clean tech not only creates more productive employment, it provides better economic return on investment, not to mention the environmental benefits as well.
             • CV - Real Labour …

               2 February 2013 at 4:40 pm

               Another thing you’re failing to understand is that green growth can be undertaken within the confines of a market economy

               And green growth occurring within “the confines of a market economy” is different from growth in the context of “neoliberal crap” because what?

               It’s going to drive consumption and spending down? It’s going to drive resource extraction and energy use down? It’s going to drive debt down?

               Or is “green growth” jusst going to increase all those things?
               • Jackal …

                 2 February 2013 at 5:37 pm

                 It’s going to drive consumption and spending down? It’s going to drive resource extraction and energy use down? It’s going to drive debt down?

                 You’re boring me now CV – UnReal Labour.

                 As already explained, it’s not likely to drive down spending in the short term because more people will be employed and have more money to spend… They could also spend that extra money on paying debt. With more money being spent the economy will pick up and the government will therefore be more likely to service debt as well. Green growth is guaranteed to drive down resource extraction of fossil fuels, which is a pretty big bonus don’t you think?
                 • CV - Real Labour …

                   2 February 2013 at 5:42 pm

                   Green growth is guaranteed to drive down resource extraction of fossil fuels, which is a pretty big bonus don’t you think?

                   lol people with more jobs and more income is somehow going to drive down energy use and resource consumption?
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   2 February 2013 at 5:49 pm

                   As already explained, it’s not likely to drive down spending in the short term because more people will be employed and have more money to spend… They could also spend that extra money on paying debt. With more money being spent the economy will pick up and the government will therefore be more likely to service debt as well.

                   You wrote all of that and then contradicted it with:

                   Green growth is guaranteed to drive down resource extraction of fossil fuels, which is a pretty big bonus don’t you think?

                   Increased spending must increase resource use and therefore extraction and that’s even taking into account recycling.
                   • Jackal …

                     2 February 2013 at 6:05 pm

                     That makes no sense Draco T Bastard…

                     Building windmills and solar arrays etc to provide the energy required to build things to consume will be way better than relying on polluting energy production and a stagnant economy to reduce consumption.

                     What makes you think that’s going to reduce the amount of waste generated from consumption anyway, because it’s clearly not working?

                     Green growth will also give New Zealanders more employment and a better standard of living. With more money, people will buy better quality products that will last longer, which will also reduce waste.

                     Increased spending must increase resource use and therefore extraction and that’s even taking into account recycling.

                     Could you link to your research then that shows green growth projects combined with better recycling practices will increase pollution?
                   • Bill …

                     2 February 2013 at 6:45 pm

                     Green growth will also give New Zealanders more employment and a better standard of living. With more money, people will buy better quality products that will last longer, which will also reduce waste

                     Oh, that’s nice Jackal. So now, not only do we have a benign market economy that magically resolves resource depletion, etc through merely being ‘green’, we have no inbuilt obsolescence and fashion driving market demands and consumption patterns. La-la land much?

                     Getting real for a moment – if you can handle such a proposition. Sure, a lot of production is unnecessary and destructive. But merely meaninglessly ‘greening’ the market won’t address that. And carbon neutral energy systems would be good. But the non-fossil fuel resources to run the present demand side of the energy equation simply don’t exist. And won’t ever exist.

                     Now you want keep on with a facile ‘Green’ mantra that would demand we unthinkingly ascribe to a magical faith based transformation of market dynamics? pfft! Up to you I guess. But applying a bit of critical reasoning would…but, yeah – nah. You’ve no wish to visit uncomfortable places, have you? Much better to keep with that cozy fairy tale of yours and hope that endless repitition will bring about the basis of a new reality.
                   • fatty …

                     2 February 2013 at 7:04 pm

                     Could you link to your research then that shows green growth projects combined with better recycling practices will increase pollution?

                     This is worth a read

                     Green capitalism is the new type of capitalism, makes us feel good, gives us hope.
                     Its just the latest scam, the latest social movement to be incorporated into capitalism.
                     The Maori Sovereignty Movement was twisted until Iwi morphed into businesses that were ready to do the capitalist’s bidding.
                     The feminist movement got used by capitalists to supply temporary, flexible workers with no rights.
                     The Green movement is used to give us hope that capitalism can work…the chocolate with the laxative inside as Zizak says.

                     We need to get over this capitalist love affair. Lets end it, and not allow it to pervert our hopes and dreams
                   • Jackal …

                     2 February 2013 at 7:50 pm

                     Bill

                     …we have no inbuilt obsolescence and fashion driving market demands and consumption patterns.

                     I never said that Bill… The issues you highlight were created by humans, and can therefore be solved by humans.

                     Just to clarify… Cheaper products don’t last as long and giving the public more consumer choice to buy more expensive items will ensure less waste because more expensive products usually last longer.

                     What’s hard to comprehend about that Bill?

                     But the non-fossil fuel resources to run the present demand side of the energy equation simply don’t exist. And won’t ever exist.

                     Rubbish! Ask Japan about their government driven incentives to implement renewable sources of energy and just how fast that private sector investment has grown to ensure they will not need to rely on nuclear power in the future.

                     With 70% capacity already supplied by clean energy sources in New Zealand, to think we cannot achieve 100% renewable energy supply is completely mental!

                     …magical faith based transformation of market dynamics?

                     There’s nothing magical about legislating for change Bill.

                     You’ve no wish to visit uncomfortable places, have you?

                     I’m not sure what you mean Bill… Are you on drugs?

                     Much better to keep with that cozy fairy tale of yours and hope that endless repitition will bring about the basis of a new reality.

                     I must say that I enjoy your ignorant ranting there Bill. I was just wondering if you’ve read the guest post on The Jackal today?

                     Basically it says we’re stuffed because of climate change, so no fairy tale ending I’m affraid. That’s not to say we shouldn’t try to do something about the problem though… You spelt repetition wrong btw.

                     fatty

                     Green capitalism is the new type of capitalism, makes us feel good, gives us hope. Its just the latest scam.

                     The fact that renewable energy projects make money is not a scam fatty.

                     You’ve linked to a short book that argues against assertions that I ‘ve not made. I will therefore treat it as a straw man argument.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     2 February 2013 at 9:23 pm

                     Bill…it looks like you are on drugs AND you can’t spell AND you rant! Hang your head in shames!
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     2 February 2013 at 9:29 pm

                     Green capitalism is the new type of capitalism, makes us feel good, gives us hope.
                     Its just the latest scam, the latest social movement to be incorporated into capitalism.

                     Greenwash.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     2 February 2013 at 10:54 pm

                     Could you link to your research…

                     Your inability to understand basic mathematics isn’t my problem.
                   • Jackal …

                     3 February 2013 at 9:57 am

                     Draco T Bastard

                     Your inability to understand basic mathematics isn’t my problem.

                     So you’re arguing that a presentation that’s concerned with exponential growth rates is proof that renewable energy sources cannot increase economic growth without also increasing pollution?

                     The research you’ve linked to has nothing to do with what we’re debating Draco T Bastard.

                     It also shows that historic growth has been linked to consumption and pollution because fossil fuels were being used. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that if we replaced our fossil fueled energy sources with renewable energy that pollution would decrease?

                     In fact you only have to look at countries like Japan and Germany to see real results.

                     After $17 billion was invested in Japan’s renewable energy projects, their GHG emissions were cut by 2%. This is a huge feat of engineering considering how much Japan relies on fossil fueled electricity generation. They now predict it will take 15 years to totally replace the 50 GW of nuclear electricity generation (13% of Japan’s primary energy consumption) with renewable energy while also reducing CO2 emissions further.

                     Implementation of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power in Japan is outstripping previous projections, and Japans government is set to create an approximately $628 billion clean energy market by 2020 through deregulation and subsidies to promote development of renewable energy and low-emission cars.

                     Studies from Germany also show they will be able to abate the country’s carbon emissions dramatically by implementing renewable energy projects that would neither curb economic growth nor require lifestyle changes or lower levels of comfort. CO2 emissions are projected to be cut in Germany by 30 to 40% by 2020.

                     In fact the research undertaken by the Political Economy Research Institue at the University of Massachusetts shows that you get more than twice as many jobs compared to investment into polluting industries, which directly translates to more economic growth.

                     The increased incomes as a result of more people being employed will not create more pollution through increased consumption in comparison to the reduced pollution from replacing fossil fueled energy generation systems.

                     But don’t let the facts get in the way of your defunct belief system Draco T Bastard.
                   • fatty …

                     3 February 2013 at 12:55 pm

                     The fact that renewable energy projects make money is not a scam fatty.

                     True, but that was not my point.
                     My point is that capitalism is the scam, and green capitalism is the new capitalism.
                     Keynesian capitalism failed us, neoliberalism failed us…green capitalism will fail us.

                     Here’s the arguments for green capitalism:

                     – Environmental issues are too important to be left to the fringe of politics and should be a mainstream issue for all New Zealanders
                     – New Zealand’s environment and our national heritage – our soils and oceans and the imagery that surrounds our biodiversity and wilderness outback – hold the key to our nation’s future prosperity.
                     – There is a need for an independent band of environmentally conscious people to constantly remind the National Party that sustainable development is the way to prosperity.

                     …brought to you by the National Party.
                     This sort of thing is promoted by neoliberals as the answer to our problems. Its not, its a way to continue capitalism. You won’t sort the environment with capitalism. No chance. Not even close.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     3 February 2013 at 1:00 pm

                     Jackal…dunno where you got your figures from …but Japan’s anthracite imports were up 39% last year.

                     http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/27/coal-japan-anthracite-idUSL4E8KQ35W20120927
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     3 February 2013 at 1:02 pm

                     Also, it looks like Japan’s oil imports rose by the largest amount in the last 9 years.

                     BTW I reckon Japan is a couple of years (2-3) away from not being able to pay its bills.
   • Tim 5.3

     2 February 2013 at 12:40 pm

     awwww but Bill, that might mean he’s getting more than Me!!! not fair not fair (sarc.)
6. Afewknowthetruth 6

   2 February 2013 at 12:47 pm

   The curse isn’t unemployment; the curse is the Industrial Revolution, which began destroying natural, sustainable systems at a phenomenal pace around 230 years ago.

   Now that the industrial economy is running out of high EROEI energy sources and is running out of people and places to exploit it’s all starting to grind to a halt.

   Rather than cursing National we should be praising them: they are doing a marvellous job of wrecking the industrial economy (and the nation’s finances), and are therefore bringing forward the collapse, after which some sane arrangements might be possible.

   Indeed, it is only the rapid collapse of present globalised economic arrangements that can provide young people with any prospect of having a habitable planet to live on.

   Continuation of present industrial arrangements leads to an overheated, resource-depleted planet on which most people ‘fry’.:
7. Foreign Waka 7

   2 February 2013 at 12:55 pm

   NZ unemployment rate in 2012 was officially 6.5% and 0.1% off Russia, Chile, Indonesia. Place 131 of 199. The higher the number the better.
   http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=74

   With a current rate of 7.3% and rising NZ is now on Place 117 of 199. A loss of 14 places in the space of 3 months. NZ will at that rate be around 62 by the end of the year, in the range of 13.5%.
   http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/unemployment-rate

   I don’t want to be particular negative but these numbers are now getting quite depressing and with it the sentiment of the nation. This cannot be helpful.
   • infused 7.1

     2 February 2013 at 12:57 pm

     It will not be that low by end of year. Bookmark this comment for future reference.
     • Colonial Viper 7.1.1

       2 February 2013 at 12:58 pm

       But how high will it peak at during the year, infused?
     • Foreign Waka 7.1.2

       2 February 2013 at 1:19 pm

       I would be deliriously happy if the trajectory would be proofed wrong and we do not increase that number at all, really! Bookmark, please by all means 🙂
       Its depressing enough as it is.
   • geoff 7.2

     2 February 2013 at 1:29 pm

     Just wait till interest rates are forced to rise and NZ has to pay more for all the off-shore lending it has. What if +10% of Auckland mortgage holders were unable to stay above water?
   • Mike 7.3

     3 February 2013 at 12:41 am

     And that’s if you take the ‘official’ figures, which I believe are optimistic to say the least.
8. vto 8

   2 February 2013 at 1:28 pm

   Fuck yeah, these sort of closures have a massive impact on small towns and most definitely create long term unemployment in the towns. I know, I seen it and know it right now some other parts of nz. Those affected lose hope and die inside as they feel of no use to their community. It’s fucked.

   The problem is globalisation. There has been a move to allow free trade in goods and services but no similar move to allow free movement of people. Hence, we cannot move to China to do the work. We are stuck here, while the previous activities we got up to have been shipped out. That is the problem.

   Shit, it’s too nice a day to be in here and thats a big topic so I diving back into that deep blue sea – mmmmmmmmm

   Fuck, I suggested last week that just giving up on trying to remain on the whole make lots of money, get a big mortgage and a new car and Fiji holiday caper is an option. Just give it up folks, it’ll kill ya. Just go on the dole, or get some meagre part-time income and grow some veges, catch a fush and sign off. Spend more time with your neighbours friends and family. Become more invlved with your community. Go slower. It is an entirely legitimate choice – fuck the industrial machine. Fuck it completely.
   • bad12 8.1

     2 February 2013 at 2:28 pm

     As ‘Bill’ has been pointing out it actually is, more or less f**ked that is, the ‘problem’ being that the political class along with the middle class that vote them into power havn’t yet seen this little ‘fact’ as the reality,

     Part of the reasoning behind my continual calling for the building of HousingNZ type rental accommodation where such is based upon 25% of a households weekly income is that the current situation alleviated at times by whichever ‘clique’ is running the show using th tax base to foster more employment is that as we move down that path to the future there will be less and less actual production for export in this country,

     This gradual decline in production will in the future extend into our favorite pass-time of the moment ‘Dairy Exports’ as the Chinese who have a far greater land mass than our little country ramp up dairy production to unprecedented quantities,

     The genesis of this decline, the Global Free Market played out upon The Level Playing Field, the playing field as i oft point out was never level and thus not free, a level playing field would have included within the legislation of all those countries involved a minimum wage of equal amount and a currency of equal value,

     This never occurred and so as those who sold us out signed each ‘free trade’ agreement we all took the next big step backward where the best a growing number can hope for is the dole for long periods followed by short stints of low income employment something the current head of the NZ Reserve Bank quite frankly admits to happening now in His latest speech,

     There is no recovery just round the corner, the winners of this little ‘global competition’ are now taking home the booty, the trophy if you will of winning a lop-sided game, this includes the ‘booty’ of more and more of the manufacturing that has historically occurred here in NZ…
     • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1

       2 February 2013 at 4:32 pm

       The genesis of this decline, the Global Free Market played out upon The Level Playing Field, the playing field as i oft point out was never level and thus not free, a level playing field would have included within the legislation of all those countries involved a minimum wage of equal amount and a currency of equal value,

       Actually, the Level Playing field wouldn’t include a currency of equal value. It also wouldn’t include a Reserve Currency.

       Equal minimum wage, equal environmental protections, equal enforced wok safety standards and a hell of a lot else for sure. Don’t have that though and so we don’t have a level playing field and as we’ll never get those equal laws we’ll never have it either but, then, the “free-market” isn’t actually about a level playing field. It’s about setting conditions so that the rich get richer and the poor pay for it all.

       If the free-market worked as advertised then there wouldn’t have been any poverty in the 19th century and yet it was far worse than what it is today. Of course, today’s poverty is well on the way to becoming just as bad as it was in the 19th century and for the same reason – the free-market.
       • bad12 8.1.1.1

         2 February 2013 at 5:50 pm

         Ah, but now you have to explain why there need not be currencies of an equal value between all the players in a free market so as to make this market based upon a level playing field actually that–if all currencies are equal there can be no speculation in any currency and therefor ‘hedging’ becomes unnecessary…
         • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.1.1

           2 February 2013 at 7:36 pm

           Because the value of the currency should reflect what that currency can buy. The speculators stuff up that calculation and thus need to be stopped and the way to do that is to make such speculation a crime. It won’t stop all of it but it would get most.
           • bad12 8.1.1.1.1.1

             2 February 2013 at 8:21 pm

             ”because the value of a currency should reflect what that currency can buy”- now your really climbing out to the end of the branch,

             Say that slowly to yourself it makes no sense at all when inserted into a discussion on the negative side of a debate centered on the proposition that for there to be a level playing field all currencies should be of equal value,

             So have you any clarification on that little gem, ”because the value of a currency should reflect what that currency can buy”- should for instance the Chinese value our currency for us based on how much we are willing to pay for a tee-shirt,

             Consider this, in a world of the minimum wage for all workers being the same and the currencies all being the same value the US produce a tee shirt, the Chinese produce a tee shirt and here in NZ a tee shirt is produced all are marked up by the same amount by the shop selling them, which tee shirt are you going to buy,

             Your assumptions again fall over, admittedly speculation plays a big part in the NZ$,s international price but if all currencies were of the same value then NO speculation could occur Full Stop,

             Why should a $1 bottle of oil cost that $1 in the US but cost $1.20 in New Zealand dollars and various amounts across the world, for free trade to occur the playing field must first have to be shown to be level…
             • Draco T Bastard …

               2 February 2013 at 10:59 pm

               Let me put it this way: Did you notice that Greece is being fucked over by the rest of Europe because it can’t drop the value of its currency?

               I don’t believe in the free-market as it just doesn’t work no matter how many fancy equations the economists can come up with. But if you’re going to run a market economy then you need to have floating exchange rates with heavy regulation that stops speculation in currency. Eventually there will be very little difference between currencies but it’s not a starting position.
               • Mike …

                 3 February 2013 at 12:53 am

                 “with heavy regulation that stops speculation in currency.”

                 Not just currency in my opinion. All financial speculation should be heavily regulated and taxed. It is non productive and has absolutely no benefits at all to society in general whilst being extremely damaging to the real economy of goods and services.

                 Money taken from the real, productive economy by the rich and speculators goes into the false financial economy where it is used to make money from money. It rarely returns to the real economy meaning lost jobs, no investment, etc.

                 More and more money is either being horded by the elites, or siphoned off into the financial economy. This destructive, society destroying system needs heavy regulation.

                 And those that say you can’t do that or it will cost jobs or capital will go offshore and so on. Load of bollocks, if the capital is in the financial economy, it is not benefitting society (the real economy) anyway. If we make it very difficult to make high profits from financial speculation and the like then the very wealthy will have no choice but to use their capital in a more productive manner. All it takes is politicians who aren’t owned by the banks. (if they exist)
   • Draco T Bastard 8.2

     2 February 2013 at 4:14 pm

     Hence, we cannot move to China to do the work.

     Why would you want to? China may be the industrial centre of the world ATM but there still isn’t enough work there to employ everyone who already lives there.
9. Nick K 9

   2 February 2013 at 2:10 pm

   The government should subsidise the wool industry to save jobs. Then when the next small town employer goes bust, the government should subsidise that one too. In fact, it should subsidise all of them, to stop them going bust. That’s what Muldoon did. It worked. The businesses didn’t go bust. NZ did instead.
   • bad12 9.1

     2 February 2013 at 2:37 pm

     Talking s**t as usual, what’s the difference in subsidizing an industry that has a high human content involved in the production and paying out the dole to 1000’s of people every week to produce nothing,

     No difference whatsoever in the monies spent by the Government either way…
   • Foreign waka 9.2

     2 February 2013 at 2:41 pm

     You seem to be missing the point completely. Whilst I am not a fan of subsidies, I do belief people in work are staying more productive and healthy than people on the dole. So instead of the taxpayer, who is the source of any money and not the government, subsidizing all sorts of pet projects and welfare for the redundant workforce, it would be better to have a bridging finance assistance for rural and semi rural factories instated. This could also be done in conjunction with apprenticeships. It is a hard long road to get out of a lazies fair environment and no knight in shining armor will do this for NZ.
     • fatty 9.2.1

       2 February 2013 at 2:58 pm

       I’m sure we can throw some money at the wool industry…if it means we throw less at the dairy industry, then that’s probably a good thing.
       Cow titties might make a lot of money, but we are now at the stage where one mad cow will cost us. On the upside, one mad cow would do wonders for our environment.

       Ironically, the last time we were in this situation was when the wool industry collapsed in the 1970s. Creating diversity via subsidies is way better than what we are currently doing – all our eggs are in the one basket.
       • Foreign Waka 9.2.1.1

         2 February 2013 at 3:44 pm

         Sorry, basket has been sold to the Chinese.
         And yes, diversity and producing should be the main objective. NZ has the raw material, expertise (still) and willing workforce. So where is the machinery (with the current exchange rate actually quite cheap) and people who “get the show on the road”? NZ had a great chance (maybe still) to break into the most difficult market of producing fabric for the Italian fashion industry. What happened?
         • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1.1.1

           2 February 2013 at 4:46 pm

           Sorry, basket has been sold to the Chinese.

           Yep and I’m so happy to see that. It’s going to put even more pressure on us to become self-sufficient.
           • Foreign Waka 9.2.1.1.1.1

             2 February 2013 at 5:05 pm

             Well, I am not happy about that. China is buying up big world wide. Just got the rights to the Gwadar port from Pakistan (used to be held by Singapore for 40 years). It is the sovereignty that can get lost with such a small country like NZ. But then again, maybe people like to be an outpost of China. Politically though, I like to know.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               2 February 2013 at 5:51 pm

               I’m against foreigners buying up NZ land and businesses. I have no problem with them buying cows from NZ and importing them to then build up their own herds.
               • Foreign Waka …

                 2 February 2013 at 6:40 pm

                 Having moved here several decades ago, my approach always was and is: you don’t have to own something to enjoy it. So no, don’t want the country side being taken possession of , at least not anything that is as large as the Crafar farms or similar.
                 • Alinsky …

                   2 February 2013 at 9:05 pm

                   “you don’t have to own something to enjoy it.”

                   No, but the owners make the profits from it . . . rent, dividends, royalties.
     • NoseViper (The Nose knows) 9.2.2

       4 February 2013 at 3:43 pm

       Foreign waka
       +1
   • CV - Real Labour 9.3

     2 February 2013 at 2:52 pm

     What are you, an idiot? The Government should simply go back to the model of the old Wool Board, and help co-ordinate the industry’s local and international strategies. This follows the long proven concept of legislatively mandated producer boards.

     Fucking moron.
     • Andre 9.3.1

       2 February 2013 at 3:47 pm

       Fatty is right on some points .1 mad cow and we will be eating cats for awhile ..
       • CV - Real Labour 9.3.1.1

         2 February 2013 at 4:50 pm

         just to be clear, i was replying to NK.
   • Poission 9.4

     2 February 2013 at 4:29 pm

     oh you mean like the financial markets,the banks and the finance companies
   • NoseViper (The Nose knows) 9.5

     2 February 2013 at 7:44 pm

     Oh good one Nick K. You appear to be looking squarely at the problem but then just sidle away from it all with a sneer.
10. Tiger Mountain 10

    2 February 2013 at 2:42 pm

    Please do enlighten us then Nick K why nation states should be maintained at all?

    Oh, that’s right, it is to maintain standing bodies of armed men and blue bellies and jails to enforce the capitalists ability to exploit the planet and its inhabitants. Silly me, otherwise we might have anarchy or socialism.
11. Nick K 11

    2 February 2013 at 2:53 pm

    Nation states should exist to subsidise every failing business that exists in said nation state. That’s what you want, right? As I say, it worked during the Muldoon’s era. We had subsidies for everything and no companies went bust. They prospered. But NZ went bust because it’s completely unaffordable.

    What would save some of those jobs is not having minimum wages. I wait your eager promotion of that. After all, you “care” about those people’s jobs, don’t you?
    • CV - Real Labour 11.1

      2 February 2013 at 2:56 pm

      Nation states should exist to subsidise every failing business that exists in said nation state. That’s what you want, right?

      Oh no, not at all, the big banks should be allowed to fail. Of course, the big banks are the vampire squid of the global economy, sucking the life out of our local main street and light industrial areas of town, but you wouldn’t understand that would you.

      What would save some of those jobs is not having minimum wages. I wait your eager promotion of that. After all, you “care” about those people’s jobs, don’t you?

      You’re just saying this because you’d like to to be an overseer whipping the slave train.
    • vto 11.2

      2 February 2013 at 3:25 pm

      You need to do some of your own thinking Nick K because what you spout is totally unoriginal and incorrect on many many fronts. The evidence is all around you. Take a closer look and do some deeper thinking.
    • Foreign Waka 11.3

      2 February 2013 at 3:36 pm

      The advocate of a removal of minimum wage rates has been presented by the World Bank and other organizations. The argument is that setting minimum wages constrains a company from growing and innovating. No it doesn’t – look at Germany or the Scandinavian countries.
      It is just a way out to make exploitation plausible and maximize profits for shareholders. The logic of having an “open” wage negotiation environment does not tell anyone that this is a case of need and want. The one who needs loosed out to the one who wants. Simple as that.
    • Draco T Bastard 11.4

      2 February 2013 at 4:49 pm

      What’s unaffordable is the capitalists. As long as we’re kowtowing to them then we will always run out of wealth.
    • Mike 11.5

      3 February 2013 at 1:02 am

      We have subsidies for everything now. (eg WFF, Accommodation Sup, etc). Removing these (not acc sup for beneficiaries) might remove the necessity for a minimum wage as employers might be forced to pay a living wage.

      How does not having a minimum wage save jobs? Not having a minimum wage would simply mean even more subsidies as people couldn’t afford to live without state assistance.

      Here’s a radical idea that obviously would never happen. Why not try increasing the unemployment benefit dramatically, make it easy to get the benefit and see how the jobs / wages situation changes.I would envisage a huge increase in wages at the lower end as employers try to attract people off the unemployment benefit.
12. bad12 12

    2 February 2013 at 3:02 pm

    Don’t pretend to even begin to even presume to know what i want you wing-nut wanker your obviously f**king clueless on the basics of economy as well as reading minds,

    Take away the minimum wage and guess what will happen??? care to tell us???,

    NZ went bust, what the f**k are you actually on about, of course it didn’t go bust Sir(spit)Roger Douglas simply conned idiots like you to that belief so that He could use the ‘there is no alternative’ bullshit to impose His Neo-Liberal lie upon the NZ economy…
13. Andre 13

    2 February 2013 at 3:24 pm

    Sorry to interject But Stop buying overseas stuff stop borrowing other countrys money. and lay of the oil . JOB DONE saved NZ. Time for a swim…..
14. Alinsky 14

    2 February 2013 at 4:49 pm

    Why was it the Greens instead of Labour who exposed this?

    Oh, I forgot. The Greens are the major opposition party.
15. Andre 15

    2 February 2013 at 5:12 pm

    http://t.co/XVjJ763n Councils in UK , let us do jobs thing.
    • The Al1en 15.1

      2 February 2013 at 10:22 pm

      “94,000 people completed hair and beauty courses last year”

      I’d like to know when the government trains all these thousands of builders and tradesmen to rebuild Christchurch, once it’s done, what then? Export them to Aus?
      • Andre 15.1.1

        2 February 2013 at 11:06 pm

        Hair grows at 15 cm a year X 4 million people equals 600km of hair cutting . seems like good work if you can do it….
        • The Al1en 15.1.1.1

          3 February 2013 at 7:13 am

          And no doubt they all do it very well, but

          “94,000 people completed hair and beauty courses last year, even though there were only 18,000 new jobs in the sector”

          My point is that right now there’s a need with the CC rebuild, but that’s a lot of investment dollars in training that has a finite amount of work at the end of it, considerable as it is.
          Who’s paying for the training?
          If it’s the taxpayer, then how do they ensure they’re not training Aussies next gen of builders for free.
          If it’s the worker, I’d expect SD minister of the day to go easy on them when all the work dries up, seeing as they’ve already stumped up and done their bit.

          Novel idea, let the businesses and corporate giants give ‘their’ staff the training.
          They could take the cost out of the tens/hundreds of millions they’ll rake in.
          • rosy 15.1.1.1.1

            3 February 2013 at 8:01 am

            “Who’s paying for the training?”

            Student loans.

            It’s one of the things people need to remember when they talk about privileged kids getting their university education cheap. Even the working class kids need loans to pay for their training. It’s not their employers who pay to train up their staff, especially with not enough apprenticeship places, and the government has also brought into the line that it’s only the trainee who benefits from training, not the employer. Another subsidy for business.
            • karol 15.1.1.1.1.1

              3 February 2013 at 8:04 am

              Agree that employers benefit greatly from training apprentices. But so too does the wider society – we all benefit.
              • rosy …

                3 February 2013 at 8:12 am

                Yes. It’s a 3-way benefit – trainee, employer and society – which is why the government has a valid and important role in the provision of training. The employers? They’re not doing their bit, generally speaking. They can’t even use the excuse that they take a hit by paying employees who are still learning, given they can pay minimum wages and training wages. I note that there are some employers who have quite extensive training schemes – but they’re the exception.
              • Descendant Of Sssmith …

                3 February 2013 at 8:18 am

                Of course the state always subsidised business for apprenticeships by providing business with a steady supply from places like the railway workshops in Wanganui and MOW.

                Even local hospitals had their own carpenters and electricians and did apprenticeships.

                In the way the government ensured that necessary state infrastructure was maintained for the community benefit and there was a supply of trained people ready for when the ebbs and flows of the free market needed trained people.

                Somehow this has moved to instantly expecting trained people to appear out of the woodwork when needed, a large variation in training across PTE’s, an expectation that people pay for their own training rather than the state, that training such as this will produce people via supply and demand forecasting in a business environment where maximising short-term profit is the mantra rather than long term investment and that somehow young unemployed people will want to go and work for the very politicians and businessmen who daily denigrate and abuse them.

                Why the hell would you go and work for arseholes who spend twelve months of the year telling you you’re shit?

                That’s one of the saddest things about the current drive to competition based on low wages – it makes employers who genuinely care about their staff and who pay a decent wage, etc uneconomic. We lost the good ones and get corporate wankers who only care about profit.
              • The Al1en …

                3 February 2013 at 8:34 am

                No doubting that, mate.
                Educated bright sparks should be every parents dream, except at bedtime or when they outsmart you in debate.
                Evolutionary win. 😆
            • The Al1en 15.1.1.1.1.2

              3 February 2013 at 8:30 am

              “It’s not their employers who pay to train up their staff”

              That totally debunks act and the nats argument for youth rates.
              Must send it to Banks in a brown envelope marked ‘Not a donation’

              “Another subsidy for business.”

              I concur.
              I’m sure there’s a reasoning, seeing as it’s a natural disaster and our people suffering through no fault of their own, that the rebuild should a not for profit deal.
              Making lots of money out of other people’s grief is a bit offensive to me.
16. Ad 16

    2 February 2013 at 9:04 pm

    So what hopes do you above have for the new Callaghan Institute? Will they link with NZVIF and enable another generation to burn through their J-curves of startup innovation curve, or will it continue the preference of mere licensing, as in Uniservices? Brutal decisions to happen to high-value ideas.

    I’ve often tossed up what would be more preferable; more foreign ownership of milk processing and value-added plants, or more aggregated but locally-owned dairy farms. It seems an either-or.

    Dairy remains to me the one great manufacturing hope New Zealand has. Which way should progressive governments lead it?
    • Andre 16.1

      2 February 2013 at 10:32 pm

      Just cheap bulk product . Money made at other end . Money is made by multinationals who reconstitute it .. We just grow…. grass and do the hard jaka
      • Andre 16.1.1

        2 February 2013 at 10:48 pm

        http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20130122-1108-business_with_rod_oram-048.mp3 Economist an NZ milk
17. MrV 17

    2 February 2013 at 10:08 pm

    Whose fault is it if you’ve taken on a huge mortgage and now have now reduced your flexibility in the labour market?
    • blue leopard 17.1

      2 February 2013 at 11:12 pm

      Your own.

      And consequently what would happen if large numbers people realized that they really can’t afford to buy a house with their income, not even via a mortgage?

      Do you think that people might start realizing that there situation is not as comfortable as they thought it was and might start voting for parties that would put in place policies that actually “work” for people, not solely profit?
18. xtasy 18

    2 February 2013 at 10:21 pm

    Summit Wool Spinners are owned, at least in part, by Sumitomo Corporation.

    Like any other large international corporation, they do of course primarily invest in and operate businesses, be this in manufacturing or whatever, that turn out products that sell at certain local, regional or international markets.

    Summit Wook Spinners was apparently more of a supplier for local and possibly Australian markets. As wool carpets have been in less demand, for various reasons (carpets made from synthetics replacing wool in many areas, GFC fall-out effect impacting on demand, and Australia also having its problems), it seems they simply saw too little good prospects to keep going.

    I am not familiar with the technological standard of equipment used there, but going by my own experience, many NZ manufacturers, apart from the truly successful ones, often in niche market areas, many are not equipped with the best up to date machinery.

    So competition at a global level quickly becomes an issue, and the currency exchange rate only adds to that.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1301/S00668/proposed-sale-of-summit-wool-spinners-oamaru-plant.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumitomo_Corporation

    http://www.sumitomocorp.co.jp/english/ir/report/annual_report.html

    http://www.sumitomocorp.co.jp/english/ir/doc/2012f/ar2012.pdf

    Perhaps have a look at some info supplied via those links to get some insight in the matter.

    It is not an easy one to resolve.

    As for globalisation and free trade, that has always been favoured primarily by large globally operating and trading corporations, to achieve freer flows of goods, less levies, taxes and duties, to conquer more markets. Only some medium size enterprises followed that idea, some of course as they had to.

    Free movement of capital and goods is their elixir so to say, but workers are primarily looked at as a “cost factor”. So it is capitalism in it’s pretty pure form what goes on.

    Little NZ has little to stand on in a world increasingly designed to favour those players, and naturally it ends in the biggest taking over the markets and controls, calling the shots, demanding “reforms” and “perks”, and governments are mere mercenaries to deliver these, so some “investment” flows their countries’ ways.

    That leaves governments in between trying to please, pay off, and even lie to their voters and the public, to justify what they see necessary to do, and on the other hand also as mere service and perk deliverers for the ones playing the tunes, that is the corporations and large scale investors. Banks of course fit in there as the ones involved in supplying the credit and “oil” to keep such a system running.

    So dream of a nationalised wool board, social economics and the likes, writing some dream scenarios here is not how you will change things, I am afraid.
    • Andre 18.1

      2 February 2013 at 10:40 pm

      A handbag is a handbag .But a Gucci hand bag is a Gucci hand bag NZ can be “Gucci”
      • xtasy 18.1.1

        2 February 2013 at 11:07 pm

        Hah, there are a many a “Gucci” made in China (illegally) handbags also. “Gucci” is not necessarily always “Gucci”!
        • Andre 18.1.1.1

          2 February 2013 at 11:24 pm

          Food is not the same .look at the media in China over the chemical found in milk ,food matters . Middle class and the rest will pay premium for safe high quality foodstuffs.. Rollsroyce biggest market China .2016 China will have capacity to export milk to,,, say NZ
          • xtasy 18.1.1.1.1

            2 February 2013 at 11:41 pm

            Yes, they already export to us garlic, fruit, dried fruit and certain other food-stuffs, processed or not, and it is likely to increase very much.
            • Foreign Waka 18.1.1.1.1.1

              3 February 2013 at 8:08 am

              Best part: we produce and ship, China processes and packages and – send it back to us. Profit Margin: gone overseas.
      • Mike 18.1.2

        3 February 2013 at 1:05 am

        One of the more ridiculous things in our society is that a handbag which costs 10 bucks to make can be sold for thousand’s. Fuck we’re dumb.
    • Afewknowthetruth 18.2

      2 February 2013 at 11:37 pm

      governments…. even lie.

      Gosh, and though that lying was the ONLY thing governments did. After all, the monetary system is founded on fraud and lies, the international bond market is founded on fraud and lies, everything the government says about the long term energy situation is a lie, everything the government says about the environment is a lie, everything the government says about population and population growth is a lie. That doesn’t leave much.

      Empire of Lies. That’s why we’re in the mess we are in.
      • Andre 18.2.1

        3 February 2013 at 12:07 am

        TRUE….
      • Robert Atack 18.2.2

        3 February 2013 at 8:55 am

        And the Green party savings scam
19. Afewknowthetruth 19

    2 February 2013 at 11:42 pm

    Oops. I forgot to say that GDP is a lie and the notion that raising GDP raises living standards is a lie. The standard of living in most western nations peaked around 1970 and has been declining ever since.
    • Andre 19.1

      3 February 2013 at 1:09 am

      world equalization is happening.
20. xtasy 20

    2 February 2013 at 11:50 pm

    One must be realistic, REAL change can only be brought about on an international level, so that we have MORE of a level playing field, when it comes to wages, salaries, environmental, social, health and other standards, and the International Labour Organisation can be used as a vehicle to achieve this.

    So NZ can only get somewhere influencing the global trends and developments, by joining other countries and nations having similar concerns.

    There may be options for more collective, co-operative style and socially owned enterprises and business at a national level, but to run businesses in manufacturing or else, to compete internationally at the present conditions, that is a bit unrealistic, I am afraid.

    It is division, on a global and national scale, that is allowing things to go on as they are, and as long as NZers are so divided, most are so selfish and full of EGO, and think of their fun, security, job and opportunity before the collective interests, NOTHING will change.

    Sadly decades of privatisation, out-sourcing, off-shoring and tightening rights and rules for all, that has led to at least one young generation now knowing NONE ELSE, but what we have. Many older ones also got used to it, some reluctantly and some willingly, so to really get people join for a sensible change, to challenge the status quo, that is the huge task ahead.

    I wonder whether the many writing here daily get that, and whether you realise that we all are of flesh and blood, need food water, and more, and will not only be influenced by what goes on on cyber forums, no matter how nice and entertaining it all is.

    The unions have struggled for years to interest new potential members, so have other organisations. Protests are getting low turnouts, and most are busy shopping, consuming, competing and shitting on each other, or having a good time, no matter whether on other’s expense or not, but just to have fun.

    The present situation is NOT ready for REVOLUTION or any substantial CHANGE, it is ready for more downhill idiocy and eventual destruction of society and the natural environment we all need anyway. Amen!
    • Andre 20.1

      3 February 2013 at 12:17 am

      True but still reversible. We need God … a new type of God choose a good one or make one up but a new God, Then we follow to resurrection or something……….Bugger we got KEY.
    • Mike 20.2

      3 February 2013 at 1:10 am

      Yep. The trouble is that the elite have more and more control (through lobbying, ownership of corporations, etc,etc) of the decisions made on “our behalf”.

      As long as the current system continues to benefit those who make the rules, it will never change. Why would the elite change things so that they lose money.

      I can see a multitude of suddenly shocked out of slumber “middle classes” in the near future. Here’s hoping it will bring about revolutionary change rather than revolution.
21. xtasy 21

    3 February 2013 at 1:48 am

    LABOUR and SLAVERY (de-facto that is) just keeps being moved from country to country. The large corparations run the whole show. See for yourself:

    http://live.wsj.com/video/why-clothes-might-not-be-made-in-china-much-longer/BD74F821-AA8A-4F4D-B7D2-60BFC3DFB763.html?mod=WSJ_article_outbrain&obref=obnetwork#!BD74F821-AA8A-4F4D-B7D2-60BFC3DFB763

    So how the hell can NZ workers defend themselves?

    They CANNOT, as long as the government is working with other governments, other corporations and stake holders, to keep the status quo!!!

    Some would say, unarmed resistance is IDIOCY. Do not ask me for my opinion, I will not give it here!
22. xtasy 22

    3 February 2013 at 2:04 am

    To “enhance” or “dramatise” the job prospect debate just a little further. Bear in mind the Mainland Chinese, same as some other former sufferers of “western” colonialism or hegemony, do not necessarily feel all that warm hearted and sorry when dealing with off-spring of whomsoever they may perceive of having any links with the “British”.

    So while they are working hard on their own success, are bound to take over a more important strategic and economic role in the world, they will have damned little sympathy for some lone Kiwis down under about losing “uncompetitive” jobs and some “social welfare perks”.

    They work hard, they will instill on their population (as they do already) a sense of “patriotism” and even “nationalism”, to distract from issues at home, so whenever their “tourists” come here, they will not ask and listen re “suffering” or “problems” with work here, they will instead think, hey, do what the “master” may be able to “afford”, as your ones did to us once, so “open your legs and let me have some fun”.

    That may be about the future prospects for NZ, if it does not get its damned act together, which I sadly cannot see happening, neither under fucking Key, nor hopeless Sheaerer.

    Wake up, Kiwis, you are on dangerous, risky turf here, your isolation is not going to protect you!
    • Afewknowthetruth 22.1

      3 February 2013 at 6:54 am

      Kiwis are not suffering enough yet , so apathy and complacency still rule. Couple that with the indoctrination in the ways of empire that goes on in schools, colleges and universities, the mainstream press, television, and magazines etc. -even on The Standard- and the appallingly low level of scientific and historical literacy, it is easy to see that the transition to a sane way of living will come via severe trauma.

      One of the interesting things about collapse is that it occurs via one person at a time, one family ay a time, one community at a time……… meanwhile the arseholes who orchestrate it all, the MPs, the city and district councils, the CEOs of corporations etc. get richer and more sociopathic and more fascist as times goes on.

      Nothing will change until the money system is changed. And all the power lies with those who do not want the money system changed. They are very happy with present arrangements, and are quite prepared to sacrifice their own children’s futures (due to resource depletion and environmental collapse) on the ‘altar’ of the present system.

      So, today is just another day of looting and polluting the planet, exploiting and poisoning the bulk of humanity, and transferring the fruits upwards to those who already have far too much. And another days of total silence about everything that matters from ALL members of ALL major political parties,

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS