The working poor

Written By: - Date published: 9:20 am, November 8th, 2014 - 183 comments
Categories: benefits, capitalism, class war, poverty - Tags: ,

Wherever you find right-wing governments, you find an erosion of workers’ rights and wages. The situation in England is much the same as here:

Over half of all families in poverty are also in work. That’s why we need a living wage

Earlier this year it was reported that over half the families living in poverty are also in work. When the Living Wage movement started over a decade ago campaigners were often told that it couldn’t be done, but now business leaders report that implementing the Living Wage brings real benefits, increasing productivity and staff retention, while lowering absenteeism.

Also:

Millions of families living in poverty despite being in employment says new study

There are more working families living in poverty in the UK than non-working families for the first time since the birth of the welfare state, according to a new study.

A report by a development charity attributes the figures to a sustained and “unprecedented” fall in living standards that has hit UK households, in which average incomes have fallen by 8% since a peak in 2008. As a result, around 2 million people have an income that would have been considered below the poverty line in 2008.

The Nats’ line on poverty is that beneficiaries need to get in to work. The rise of the working poor both in NZ and internationally, shows what nonsense that excuse is. And yet, they continue to erode the rights of workers.

183 comments on “The working poor”

  1. tricledrown 1

    Poorly paid workers don’t complain and don’t organize and don’t vote!

  2. karol 2

    And yet, the Nats are crowing that average wages are going up. They aren’t talking about comparisons between the highest and lowest paid workers.

    And read the story of Hamilton slum state houses, and the despondent lives of people there. Read it an weep.

    How long have the Nats had to do something about places like this?

    • BM 2.1

      If they’re not happy they can always move out.

      Especially the one who spends $150 a week on smokes.

      • weka 2.1.1

        So you want to take their medication away as well at their jobs, housing and dignity?

        • Tracey 2.1.1.1

          “… They will poke your eyes out to make a buck then laugh at you for being blind. …” fareinheits post yesterday

        • BM 2.1.1.2

          Dignity?.
          The only reason these people stay is because if you move you’ll fall off the housing corp teat and won’t be able to get back on.

          • Tracey 2.1.1.2.1

            citation?

          • karol 2.1.1.2.2

            Dear god. Did you read the article? Such lack of empathy or understanding is mind boggling.

            It’s not like they are living in luxury, or haven’t looked for jobs that would offer hope of a better life.

            It’s hardly a life of happiness, with a sense of security and hope.

            • Tracey 2.1.1.2.2.1

              he doesnt even read articles HE links to!

              he is not a reader he is a collector of lies that make him feel good about his world view. uncritical and untested.

              he is the perfect dupe for our government and its plans. they probablt laugh at how easy people like BM make it for them to screw others, and him… i pity him and hope he never falls on hard times, or loses his job having been unable to afford income insurance.

              • greywarshark

                @ Tracey +1
                Is he useful here as a good example of the awful state of the minds of the right wing?

                and Weka
                It seems to me that BM has worked up a dependence on The Standard as a repository for his oversupply of ire and disagreeable personality.

            • Tracey 2.1.1.2.2.2

              yup, to people like BM the important point of the article is that one person smokes a few ciggies. even IF that flawed logic applied, where is the sympathy for the plight of those who dont smoke.

              MANY kiwis are a redundancy letter away from needing a benefit. being wilfully ignorant of that seems to make them smug and self righteous

              • Lloyd

                And don’t forget, selling cigarettes was the only job of at least one (or was it two?) of the National members of Parliament, so those smokers are doing just what the National party wants them to do. Implying that they are wasting $150 per week on cigarettes is obviously not consistent with attitudes of the elected members of the National Party. Is BM a Maori Party supporter?

            • Once Was Tim 2.1.1.2.2.3

              Don’t even bother @ Karol. Some think its actually a bit of a hoot to denigrate people struggling – like junkies hoping to keep their mates addicted so it makes themselves feel OK. Stereotyping is the bigot’s best friend- – especially for someone as ‘smart and smarmy’ as the Holier than Thou BM.
              We really shouldn’t feed the trolls – they feed on it and get phat (right up until the unforseen shit hits the fan for them – then they usually squeal like stuffed pigs).

              The usual sociopaths that come in here I’ve noticed do sound remarkably similar, and not unlike Jamie Lee Ross on a TV3 ‘expert’ panel. ANd they’re not just thick skinned either – they’re just thick

            • Stephanie Rodgers 2.1.1.2.2.4

              BM can’t be argued with. He’s a mindless regurgitator of WhaleOil-type bigotry with no aim other than disrupting the conversation here.

              There’s a word for it, and it starts with T and rhymes with moll.

          • weka 2.1.1.2.3

            “The only reason these people stay is because if you move you’ll fall off the housing corp teat and won’t be able to get back on.”

            There’s nothing wrong with dependency BM. It’s a normal aspect of humanity. We’re all interdependent. You, I think, suffer from the delusion that the things you have in your life are due solely to your own effort (and perhaps luck, which I’m sure you think you deserve and somehow created, so others who don’t have it can only blame themselves).

            If the state wants to run the economy so there aren’t enough jobs and housing is expensive, then it has some choices. It can either leaev people to their fates and let them drop into the criminal classes, or it can support the people that it otherwise disenfranchises. Which would you prefer?

            Besides, my comment was really that you want to deny poor people medication, which makes you a sick fuck.

          • Puddleglum 2.1.1.2.4

            Hi BM,

            You might want to read this book – Scarcity: Why having too little means so much.

            Of course, it’s hardly news that poverty creates a vicious cycle. Not having money is expensive, thanks to credit card late fees, high interest rates on payday loans, the extra cost of buying in instalments, and so on. But the alarming conclusion of this book is how completely scarcity colonises the mind. Merely asking poorer people to contemplate a hypothetical £1,000 car repair, one study by the authors shows, impairs their performance on intelligence tests as much as missing a night’s sleep – about 13 or 14 IQ points. In another study, Indian sugar cane farmers performed worse pre-harvest, when money was tight, compared to post-harvest.

            Poverty damages everything – and it does so for everyone; even you.

            Poverty is not a consequence of a ‘poverty of character’.

          • Paul 2.1.1.2.5

            You sound like a sociopath.

      • felix 2.1.2

        ” $150 a week on smokes”

        Cite please. I think you made that up.

        • BM 2.1.2.1

          Got it from the comments section.

          Bit high though.

          17.20 a packet x 7 = 120.00 per week

          • Tracey 2.1.2.1.1

            so you read it, saw it was 120 and changed it to 150 = no citation.

            what do roll your owns cost?

          • felix 2.1.2.1.2

            Thought so. You made it up.

            You took the outside estimate and multiplied it by a pack of tailies, then added 25%.

            Probably spends 40 bucks a week on rolls. And so what?

          • Tracey 2.1.2.1.3

            can you explain how stopping smoking would get that person a job? can you point t a source that shows smokers dont get jobs?

            • BM 2.1.2.1.3.1

              Lots of employers don’t like to hire smokers, they stink and aren’t as productive or focused as non-smokers.

              Too busy thinking about that next smoke.

              Giving up smoking would also free up extra coin so she could move to better digs.

              • Tracey

                so, you have no source that smokers cant get jobs?

                now, why did you deliberately change the cost of the ciggarettes and ignore the much lower cost roll your owns?

                citations for the idea that smokers are less productive than non smokers or just another myth you have pulled out of slaters arse where he keeps that stuff?

                do you feel sorry for the ones who dont smoke, or have you another myth to justify your callous attitude to their plight.

                • TheContrarian

                  I admittedly did work in an organisation that didn’t hire smokers due to:

                  A) the smell
                  B) because they nipped out for 5 – 10 mins every hour or so which adds up over the day production wise.

                  Just saying – it happens

                  • Tracey

                    its a smokescreen by bm. 😉

                  • Murray Rawshark

                    That 5-10 minutes every hour is often spent talking to other workers and can lead to greater productivity. It’s a bit like executive team building and brainstorming events, except that it costs a lot less and it sometimes works. I know when I was smoking that it was a huge aid to my productivity.

              • weka

                “Giving up smoking would also free up extra coin so she could move to better digs.”

                Still not fronting up about your desire that poor people should be denied medication.

                The rest of your argument is crap. Someone without their medication is going to be less productive than someone with. Duh.

              • tricle up

                BM One should set you on a luxury deprived diet. Appreciation is a word you probably have not invoked.

                • BM

                  Unlike like most here, I’ve done the “poverty” thing.

                  It’s not fun, but if you’re sensible you won’t starve.

                  • weka

                    Not sure how “poverty” is relevant to this discussion. We’re talking about poverty.

                    • Tracey

                      its better than that weka, BM seems to have experienced controlled and controllable poverty… and having made it out callously mocks any who are still there to make themselves feel superior, and immune.

                      others who have made it out offer a hand to those still in it.

                  • Molly

                    Your comment sounds like those travellers who have “done Europe”.

                    I’m guessing that your visit to “poverty” didn’t do much to broaden your mind or develop your empathy.

                    You fail to understand, that your experience and relief from it is your own story, not applicable to all (if any). Your access to various types of support, whether financial, material, emotional, cultural or social changed the experience you had.

                    For example – a young man of 18 with only two hundred dollars in his bank account, but with use of a vehicle, access to free accommodation, possibility of a job through family and friends – has a completely different prospect from one with $300 and none of those things. And his day to day living, and choices will reflect that.

                    Only by stripping down arguments like yours to basic premises (that ignore reality) are you able to make the claims and solutions to “poverty” that you do.

                  • Tracey

                    ” unlike most here” citation please

                  • Once Was Tim

                    I bet you have @ BM. The turn of phrase and your lingo reminds me of the electrician neighbour of mine (astute, sales-speak-enabled/ideology-well-learned but fick as 2 planks with it in terms of his inability for critical thought) who turned real estate agent.
                    A total cnut and mysogenist to the women that learn very quickly what a drunken asshole he is; the drunken driver whose sense of entitlement made him think he could park anywhere he so chose (Right up until he put the firm’s van over a bank and my daughter had to ‘rescue him’ [btw she just about vomitted]; all about you; once was a tradie but now I’m better than that (right up until the time it’s ‘cashup’ – when you come to realise that in life’s dealings – you’ve actually achieved SFA.
                    JAWO! (Just another Whale Oil) Basically a life form with enough intelligence to waddle and spout platitudes and learned sales-speak – but totally full of shit.
                    My last – especially since I suggested to Karol not to bother engaging (above).

                    • Paul

                      JAWO
                      A useful way to deal with the tro**s who clutter this site.

                    • Once Was Tim

                      @ Paul … they’re the main reason I only read and comment here intermittently. But of course I have no better right than they do – it’s just that they’re frusrating – which is of course their intent.

                    • weka

                      great appraisal there Tim!

                    • BM

                      I’m glad I give you purpose Tim.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      It’s the other way ’round. It’s been said before, and it bears repeating: when we speak of others we project our shadows onto them.

                    • Once Was Tim

                      “I’m glad I give you purpose Tim”

                      Conceited as fuck with it see BM. Still, notions of self-importance, the Jamie-Lee Ross Harcourts Real Estate suit and grooming, the shallowness, the parrot-fashion learned lingo, and an oversized ego is probably all you’ve got going. Come to think of it, that’s quite a lot in a Natzi’s world – till it all turns to shit of course.

              • Just another respect in which our society has gone completely over the top about smoking.

                Yes, it’s not very good for you, especially if you do it for a long time, but some perspective would be nice.

            • KJT 2.1.2.1.3.2

              Just maybe, being allowed security, hope and dignity in their lives , may take away their need to use drugs, gamble, or drink.

              The real problem with drug dealers, including the beer barons, pokies and casino’s is they make huge money out of exploiting the human need, which we all have, to have some hopefulness in our lives. Even if it is the temporary high from a ciggie.

          • weka 2.1.2.1.4

            Rollies would be cheaper than that though.

            edit, felix’s estimate of the cost of rollies

            The working poor

            • Tracey 2.1.2.1.4.1

              STOP IT? facts have been known to explode some right wingers heads… oh… hang on…

              roll your owns, around $.43 each

              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10699354

              so about $65 each week.

              now, gangs, broken down homes, unaffordable medication, unable to find jobs…

              perhaps david seymour can start his career turning this street into epsom by making the local school high decile or even private and fully funded, average hh income over $100k, judder bars every 100m, heat pumps, insulation, two cars each… be a good way to test his “green and pleasant land” theory ( note he didnt acknowledge his plagarism from Jerusalem), but breach of copyright prolly doesnt apply in epsom. it doesnt in the national party.

      • felix 2.1.3

        “If they’re not happy they can always move out.”

        Why don’t all these so-called “poor” people get off their lazy arses and get a PR contract with the National Party?

        • Tracey 2.1.3.1

          or start a blog offering to spread lies and hatred for a price… sometimes for free cos callous is fun.

      • GregJ 2.1.4

        I read this a while ago. A piece by one of the working poor in the US – someone who works 2 jobs, is trying to study to improve themselves and their prospects, and runs a household. And probably someone who people like BM still would despise. Read it and get some insight into the despair of poverty and try to develop a little bit of compassion.

        “I smoke. It’s expensive. It’s also the best option. You see, I am always, always exhausted. It’s a stimulant. When I am too tired to walk one more step, I can smoke and go for another hour. When I am enraged and beaten down and incapable of accomplishing one more thing, I can smoke and I feel a little better, just for a minute. It is the only relaxation I am allowed. It is not a good decision, but it is the only one that I have access to. It is the only thing I have found that keeps me from collapsing or exploding.”

      • Foreign waka 2.1.5

        Decades ago, in an other country people were saying that they are so poor because a certain group of people is taking all the money and benefits that come with it from them. Little did they know that the scene was set by others so that some envy fest would ignite what would become a civil unrest and later an out and out war. You need to remember that war is actually the biggest earner in the market by a enormous margin. The latest stats show that the only industry that has shown any return in the US is the one that supplies the war machinery. But I digress. The people were so enraged that they actually shot others that were once their neighbors and tortured others who they might have talked to in a shop only some months ago.
        We all need to think about what and who we want to be if we want to have a functioning community that is there for all, especially the vulnerable. No use of hardening lines if the end is many victims just to drive a point home.
        In regards to smoking, it suppresses the hunger and eases tension. Did you know that solders were given cigarettes in the WW for that reason? It is a very effective drug to keep a lid on what might become to a situation you might not like.

    • Tracey 2.2

      they like averages more than median for obvious reasons. myth speading right wingers to follow with regurgitated, unsubstantiated lies.

    • The Bermuda Triangle… along with Poet’s Corner, one of the worst areas in NZ let alone Hamilton.

  3. weka 3

    “Since those who hold special privileges in society are naturally inclined to regard their privileges as their rights and to be unmindful of the effects of inequality upon the under-privileged, they will have a natural complacence towards injustice.”

    https://twitter.com/ebruenig/status/530778393714098176

    However, people that seek out political discussion and still maintain complacence towards injustice despite the evidence, are willfully ignorant/prejudiced. They should be classed as active perpetrators of oppression i.e. evil.

    • Tracey 3.1

      yup. lack of knowledge or education is only an excuse until you know better. people bringing up kids in ganglands doesnt bode well for the adult lives of those children. being ill from the age of five is an appalling indictment on our so called paradise.

      what a mean world we now live in, with too many people ready with myths to try and justify their callousness

      • Foreign waka 3.1.1

        How would you brake the cycle without inciting violence? Because that is what is required.

        • Tracey 3.1.1.1

          make poverty politically sexy

          • Foreign waka 3.1.1.1.1

            ???? there is nothing sexy about poverty. To make it a political football once more by using the issue to give the emperor new clothes will not help the affected either. There are ways of dealing with breaking the cycle but it would be profoundly unpopular. So what is a palatable solution?

  4. Rawsharkosaurus 4

    The Nats’ line on poverty is that beneficiaries need to get in to work. The rise of the working poor both in NZ and internationally, shows what nonsense that excuse is.

    Sounds like we now have a suspect for this crime.

  5. goodsweat 5

    I’m all for more Kiwis being in a position to lead broader and fuller lives. A week in Fiji should be within reach of all families. I feel that just jacking up wages will merely induce inflation and any purchasing improvement extinguished.

    A country needs to operate like a business except of course the income comes from tax payers. There are only 3 ways to make a business more profitable or in the case of a country, make all of the citizens better off. Get more customers (immigration). Get more from the customers you’ve got (raise taxes) or cut overheads (cut govt jobs/services).

    Introducing a Living Wage is show business. Any benefit will just be gobbled up in inflation. The increased cost to deliver the can of spaghetti and to polish the supermarket floor will be transferred to the retail price can of spaghetti.

    As with ‘Child Poverty’ the term ‘Living wage’ is another deceptive oxymoron. Four year olds don’t get jobs and if I wasn’t getting a living wage I’d be dead.

    When considering the 3 ways that could make us all better off I think the best plan is the constructive one. As ships laden with Radiata logs head off to China – I think a better shake for us all, a holiday in Fiji for us all, lies in us raising our productivity. eg: Rather than logs I believe the ship hold should be full of Ikea furniture parts.

    With this scenario, jobs become more plentiful and we wouldn’t need to legislate for higher wages. As in other countries that have raised productivity, higher incomes come naturally.

    Lets stop griping about how to slice up the same pie and put our energy into baking a bigger one.

    • GregJ 5.1

      A country needs to operate like a business

      Actually a country shouldn’t be run like a business – that’s just typical neo-liberal Friedmanite BS – start by reading Paul Krugman’s piece (Nobel winning Economist) titled “A country is not a company”.

      • Tracey 5.1.1

        yes, the death of a social contract and looking after our neighbours and the vulnerable.

      • goodsweat 5.1.2

        Yes of course there are fundamental differences. For my purpose of pointing out the futility of introducing a living wage I still feel it’s a comparison that works on that level. We can’t make everyone better off with this tool. It’s a brief flash in the pan feelgood illusion.

        Do you agree that any increase in wages will be gobbled up by inflation? Possibly leave us worse off. Those currently on $20 an hour will be looking for $24.

        • joe90 5.1.2.1

          Those currently on $20 an hour will be looking for $24.

          Yeah, god forbid those currently on $20 an hour seek to better their own situation, cheeky bastards don’t know how lucky they are!.

          //

          • goodsweat 5.1.2.1.1

            Joe, I think you are missing the point I am making. Yes, we all worthy of an improved standard of living, I agree.

            I am trying to point out what I feel is the futility of using a mandatory wage increase to achieve this.

        • Lloyd 5.1.2.2

          As long as the top salaries are reduced in a balanced manner at the same time as the living wage is introduced there will be absolutely no change in the profitability of any company and therefore there shouldn’t be any wage inflation.

          If the companies involved don’t balance their books, then the government needs to tax the higher income levels at a higher rate. Outcome – no inflation.

          The futile thing is to let economic inequality continue. Neoliberal capitalism results in fewer and fewer owning more and more of the economy. At a certain point the economy collapses because no-one who needs things can afford them and anyone with assets can’t sell them. The only long-term stable economy must have methods in it to get capital back to the poorest members of the community.

      • GregJ 5.1.3

        Oh and NZ’s productivity has increased perfectly well – the problem is that wages haven’t kept up with the productivity gains – rather the profits have increased at the expense of those wages. If real wages had started the same in 1989 and then risen as fast as productivity, the average wage in March 2013 would have been $35.91 and the minimum wage would be about $25.00/hour.

        Again do some more reading – start here with the CTUs “New Zealand’s Low Wage Economy”.

    • weka 5.2

      jeeze, where to start?

      Living wage refers to people being able to have a life, as opposed to just surviving. Defining life as not being dead means that someone starving in an African refugee camp has a life until they’re actually dead. Daft.

      We have a big enough pie. While I agree that we could be much smarter with what we produce, increasing the pie without adjusting how the pie gets cut up just gives a bigger slice to the people who already have enough or more than enough. Besides, we can’t increase the pie without locking ourselves into catastrophic global warming. We should be aiming for a steady state economy, which means radically rethinking what fairness is.

    • Tracey 5.3

      could you post some citations for your assertions?

      do you measure productivity through gdp?

      ANZ has made a record profit four years in a row. thats growing the pie right? yet they wont give a reasonable wage increase to lowest level workers. Can you explain this to me because it seems everyone grew the pie… directors fees went up, ceo pay went up, dividends went up… but lowest paid got offered about 1.5%.

      thanks in advance.

    • Tracey 5.4

      theres more ways to be dead than no longer breathing. for example if no longer having a functioning brain meant you were dead…

      • goodsweat 5.4.1

        Of course we have a responsibility towards the vulnerable, I wish we could direct more funding their way, particularly their care givers, we all do. I think the best way to achieve that is with smart green ways of getting more $ into the NZ tin.

        • Paul 5.4.1.1

          What about stop paying the bosses such exorbitant rates and directing that to the workers who actually do the tasks?
          Of what about stopping the heft of our country so profits stay onshore?

        • Tracey 5.4.1.2

          could you post some citations for your assertions?

          do you measure productivity through gdp?

          ANZ has made a record profit four years in a row. thats growing the pie right? yet they wont give a reasonable wage increase to lowest level workers. Can you explain this to me because it seems everyone grew the pie… directors fees went up, ceo pay went up, dividends went up… but lowest paid got offered about 1.5%.

          thanks in advance.

          • alwyn 5.4.1.2.1

            You have posted this comment 3 times so far.
            Can I ask, just once, that you post some citations for your assertions.
            I particular what evidence do you have to back up your claim that
            ” but lowest paid got offered about 1.5%.”.
            I haven’t even seen the union claiming that it was that low.

            • Tracey 5.4.1.2.1.1

              do you understand the meaning of almost? I notice you havent backed my call for citations from goodsweat.

              • Tracey

                “ANZ is proposing contracts where workers would only know month by month which days, start and finish times they will be working,” said FIRST Union Retail & Finance Secretary Maxine Gay.

                “Bank staff have lives outside of their job.  They have childcare requirements, commitments to community, faith and sports groups.  Many bank workers undertake tertiary study with set lecture times.  Chopping and changing hours may suit ANZ, but it does not work for workers.”

                Bank workers don’t take strike action lightly, but the bank’s proposals had prompted a strong reaction from staff, Maxine Gay said.

                “ANZ workers want jobs that they can plan their lives around, and they want a pay offer that respects their hard work that delivers such big profits, $1.37 billion last year, for the bank.”

                “ANZ needs to show some respect and decency towards its workers by offering a pay increase that values the contribution they make and that is significantly greater than the current 2% to 3% offer, and it needs to pull back on its proposal to casualise hours of work.” first union

                bank says it has offered 2.75 to 3%

                “… Contact centre and back office workers employed prior to September 2010 are being offered a 2% plus 2% wage increase over two years.  For everyone else ANZ is offering 3% and 2.75%.   Just five months agoWestpac workers achieved a 3.4% per year increase for two years,” Gay said… ”

                so…. those being offered 2% arent far off my guess from memory of almost 1.5%

                now… I posted that within minutes of seeing your post requesting. sweaty has simply said that he wont post sources cos theres no point…

                I look forward to you demanding he back up his assertions but I wont hold my breath.

        • Lloyd 5.4.1.3

          Actually it is the vulnerable that will get the world economy out of recession. If the Neoliberals running most western economies (and especially the English speaking economies) were replaced with left-wing governments with strong minimum wage and large benefit increases along with progressive taxes on all income and on capital, then the money would move and the economies of the world would boom. Giving the poor a hand-up and taxing the rich will make everyone (even the really rich) better off in the long run. Don’t begrudge a hand-out to the poor, it will make us all wealthy. Don’t get upset at high taxes on high incomes. Those taxes will benefit everyone.
          The poor have a responsibility – it is to spend their money quickly and get the cash registers ringing. If the minister of finance checked how much money the poorest 5000 New Zealanders spent every week and worked on steadily increasing that amount he would be far more effective than anything he has done for years.
          New Zealand has plenty of money for the vulnerable. The reason they don’t get it is the rich divert it into their bank accounts.

    • BassGuy 5.5

      About 2 years ago, my employer made more than $8 million.

      The only people who have had pay increases at work are the ones on minimum wage.

      You talk about making the pie larger, yet precisely the same will continue to happen:

      the wealthy will take their chunk plus a bit more – after all, they deserve it for working so hard at being wealth creators – and the tiny bits that are left over will go to the rest of us.

      Which reminds me, someone recently posted a chart showing that efficiencies have increased by 48% while pay has risen only 18%. That is making the pie larger, yet the benefits went directly to the top while the rest of us missed out on the gains for our hard work.

      We’ve been hearing your rhetoric for years now – George W. Bush talked about “making the pie higher.” Look where that’s got everyone.

      The only people who gain from this ideological rubbish are the wealthy, as they get to take more from the people who do the actual work.

      • goodsweat 5.5.1

        If your employer lost 8 million dollars how much money would the employees contribute towards his loss?

        He took the risk, the success or failure is his.

        If you feel that you bring more value to his company than you are being compensated for I think you should draw this to his attention and if a reasonable man I would hope act accordingly. Most do.

        The trick is having a good argument supported by facts re: The value you bring.

        • RedLogixFormes 5.5.1.1

          Back in the 80’s I worked for a mid-sized corporate (around 600 employees in many countries) that did a 20% profit share.

          By far the best incentive scheme I’ve ever encountered.

          • weka 5.5.1.1.1

            Is that 20% of profits shared amongst all employees equally?

            • RedLogixFormes 5.5.1.1.1.1

              Yes. However it excluded all senior execs on the grounds that they ‘were being paid enough already’.

          • goodsweat 5.5.1.1.2

            In many cases the advantages of being known in an industry as the company that pays it’s people well can increase profitability, a higher wage bill countered by a cohesive hardworking team of the best money can buy.

            Far better to be known as the company that pays great rather than lousy wages.

        • Paul 5.5.1.2

          No risk for the banks and insurance companies
          Governments bail them out.

        • Tracey 5.5.1.3

          could you post some citations for your assertions?

          do you measure productivity through gdp?

          ANZ has made a record profit four years in a row. thats growing the pie right? yet they wont give a reasonable wage increase to lowest level workers. Can you explain this to me because it seems everyone grew the pie… directors fees went up, ceo pay went up, dividends went up… but lowest paid got offered about 1.5%.

          thanks in advance.

        • Molly 5.5.1.4

          “He took the risk, the success or failure is his”

          No. The success or failure in a company of that size, depends in part on his decisions, but also in the ability of those who work for that company to challenge and/or implement those decisions efficiently and effectively.

          If your business plan requires staff to work under a living wage rate – then your business acumen has already failed. You should not require the enforced “donation” of time and effort from the working poor so that you can be successful.

        • The Other Mike 5.5.1.5

          Your reply is wrong on many levels.

          “how much money would the employees contribute towards his loss?” – OK, turn this around. How much did the employees contribute to the PROFIT? Presumably Mr or Ms Boss-man can’t complete the project WITHOUT THE STAFF.

          The staff are also at risk – of losing their jobs. In a risky venture I would say the staff will work extra hard to make it succeed. Which these people presumably did.

          Sure, obviously a great idea/project, whatever, but these bosses don’t work in a vacuum. Like society, succeeding is a co-operative effort – like this project.

          Why are you so determined that credit, and reward, should only come back to you?

          Oh, I forgot – you got yours and bugger anyone else.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.5.1.6

          He took the risk, the success or failure is his.

          No he didn’t. If that business fails the workers tend to lose more than the shareholders and administrators.

          BTW, BassGuy said that his employer made more then $8m dollars.

        • Tracey 5.5.1.7

          they grew the pie. you said growing the pie raises wages… now you are saying grow the pie….and advise the employer of the error of their ways

          why would having facts help, the employer might just google and find something that favours them to knock it back. see a post below for bow this operates

      • KJT 5.5.2

        “they deserve it for working so hard at being wealth creators”.

        Humour?

        Less than 3% of the wealthy earned it by entrepreneurship or starting a new business. I have seen an article re4cently that shows this has now decreased to 1% in the USA and UK.

        The overwhelming majority of the wealthy are living on unearned money, either inherited, or because they bought formerly State run businesses, rental assets such as houses, or they stole it!

    • Foreign waka 5.6

      You forgot that the difference between a company and to run a country is the fact that the shareholders have quite different objectives. In the case of a business it is to make more money for 1 owner, in the case of a country it is to maintain a society for all and that includes “assets” that do not return on investments, i.e. babies and elderly. To compare a company to a country is just plain dishonest on part of people who just want a share of those who distribute in the belief that their children will benefit. A person like that could be compared to a flatmate being the one emptying the fridge all the time and disappearing when the pertinent questions of replacement are asked.

    • Andrea 5.7

      I wonder if the sweat shop garment makers in Bangladesh have noticed any change for the better after slogging for 12+hr days and pouring out garments to fill orders.

      And – why would we be making IKEA products? Have we no talent of our own?

      Further – why would they be made here and have to cross the sea-miles to reach the nearest large market? There’s a cogent reason why NZ manufacturers off-shore the construction work to a well-populated continent – the cost of transport to reach a big-enough market to get a return on investment from the product/s is so much lower.

      Can’t find the FAQ about the citation – however, I do remember reading that NZ productivity has risen – just – not the matching rewards.

      Being a worker in NZ is like being a North Korean worker in Qatar – you’ll be lucky if you see even 10% of the remuneration that is rightfully yours. So much for ‘productivity’.

    • KJT 5.8

      The “growing the pie” fantasy.

      What everyone has been trying to tell you is that we have been growing the fucking pie, by 83%, while wages have gone from over 65% of the economy to less than 45%.

      And we are still waiting for “trickle down” to work.
      The other fantasy, that if you let the rich have more money they will grow the economy.

      The fact is that “growing the pie” means that asset strippers, speculators and overseas owners stole the pie, leaving the crumbs for those who worked to grow it.

      Trickle down means the same people piss on us while they accumulate all our money.

      And, of course the other right wing fantasy statement. “You won’t stop people being poor by making sure they have enough income”.
      Well, having more money sure works to keep my family from being poor.

      Unlike the right wings fantasy world.
      http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/the-magical-world-of-new-zealands-neo.html
      “It has been obvious that some people live in a different world than the rest of us”.

      • goodsweat 5.8.1

        Yes, they are startling statistics. I’ll stick with my gut feel and school of hard knocks guidance thanks. You point to an 83% increase in productivity and a wage increase that lags behind. Could the increase be due to investment in technology and the appointment of contractors? I only employ contractors in my small business now. I can’t afford employees.

        This business I speak of was formed and nourished on the back of what I feel was making the most of the trickle down theory. It worked for me. I think those that feel betrayed by the theory sat on their couches, extended a cupped hand and waited for the pennies to drop in. The trickle must be pursued and for the first while it’s nothing but damn hard work.

        We agree re: our obsession with investing in housing KJT. Having our nation’s wealth and capital tied up in non-productive houses is not ideal. Those $ could be working rather than lounging.

        Again, I’ve always had nothing but wins with the trickle down theory KJT. Maybe I don’t understand the term properly. As I understand it: If I’m flatting across the road from a stadium, when the punters head home after the game, me setting up a hot dog stand at the end of my drive is a basic example of me benefiting from a trickle. Exploiting an opportunity, yeah?

        Poor families aren’t poor because they haven’t got any money. They’re poor because they’re not very good at managing money. With money management one of the key considerations is getting it. The next most important consideration, disposing of it.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.8.1.1

          I’ll stick with my gut feel and school of hard knocks guidance thanks.

          Good to know that you’re willing to stick to your delusion. Personally, I prefer facts.

          You point to an 83% increase in productivity and a wage increase that lags behind.

          Not only lagging behind but going backwards.

          Could the increase be due to investment in technology and the appointment of contractors? I only employ contractors in my small business now. I can’t afford employees.

          They should cost the same. After all, the contractor doesn’t magically live on less food and housing just because they’re a contractor.

          I have a number of contractors in my family and what I’ve seen from them is businesses, such as yours, laying the expenses of running the business upon them while boosting their own profit.

          Those $ could be working rather than lounging.

          $$$ don’t work and never have done. It’s the people who work but we’ve been trained to think that if we have money we deserve more of it. In other words, our entire socio-economic system is designed to produce bludgers – otherwise known as the rich.

          They’re poor because they’re not very good at managing money.

          Nope. They’re poor because they don’t have any money and thus can’t access their fair share of their resources. This is known as the market system where a lot of people are priced out of being able to live.

          • goodsweat 5.8.1.1.1

            What you consider to be my delusions are delivering me the life I wish to lead. I’m only here for 80 years or so, I’m going to do what I can to have fun, surround myself with love and do what I can to help somebody else when I can…Why start your response with your belief that I’m delusionary and then go on to respond to every point I make?

            You need a big healthy helping of grandchild’s laughter.

            • Tracey 5.8.1.1.1.1

              because just about everything you have written has been seriously debunked, that you continue to believe it doesnt make you right. people here are trying to relieve you of some of the myths you tell yourself and others.

              • goodsweat

                Hi Tracey, yes, there are 1000’s of pages on the internet to support your opinion and mine.

                In spite of the immense mountains of proof, I have always found that the best person to address any money shortage I might be suffering from is me. In my NZ, we are surrounded by opportunity and abundance.

                Imagine being an Indian kid with big dreams, most never have a chance to go to a school. We are so lucky here.

                • Tracey

                  imagine if you

                  a. read my link
                  b. posted some of the research you suggests supports your notion that people who are poor dont manage money well.

                  imagine being someone blessed with education but squandering it because it threatens their position? your total lack of desire/ability to have your belief system challenged is an insult to the indian child whose lack you glibly use to advance your unfounded belief system you are the antithesis of the humble man you claim to be. have another hot dog sweaty.

                  • goodsweat

                    Tracey, I’m saddened that you feel the need to belittle me and call me names, I quite like you.

                    I read your link. It’s a perfect illustration of exactly what I’m talking about. The internet has become a clash of juxtaposed irrefutable truths. Your link are the sparks coming off an axe as the one eyed man with an axe to grind, grinds his axe.

                    For me to dig up your link’s juxtaposed counter claim is an insult to the intelligence of all but the most ardent of one-eyed Googlers and there is no saving them. Google Pong Addicts…back n forth, back n forth

                    ‘I saw it on the internet so it has to be true.’ My feeling is that the internet has become such a melting pot of ideas and opinions that the reverse is fast becoming true. ‘I saw it on the internet so it has to be a fib.’

                    [lprent: Read the policy. We foster “robust debate” and (with a few exceptions) I couldn’t give a pigs arse what other people call you – provided they have a point to go with any abuse. We prefer (ie you start taking a risk of getting moderator attention) that points go with links when they are expressed as facts rather than opinions.

                    If you want to disagree, then point to the problem with the facts or the link. Don’t whine like a smacked poodle on topics. It gets boring listening to blatant stupidity and often results in ridiculously stupid flamewars that I dislike reading (with the obvious risk factors laid out in the policy).

                    There are a lot of reasonably authoritative sources on the net. My guess is that you are either so wet behind the ears that you are incapable of distinguishing between good and bad sources, or this is a dumbarse avoidance tactic. ]

                    • Tracey

                      your feelings have proven to be such an erroneous compass it is hard to take them seriously.

                      by all means believe in your nz version of the american dream but better hope you dont wake up from your dream before you die.

                      you attempts to intellectualise your objections to any research posted to refute your beliefs doesnt hide the reality of your position. it is without foundation, seemingly incapable of proof.

                      enjoy your reality and dont waste time liking or not liking people on the internet sweaty, its the words that matter.

                      enjoying your hot dogs?

                    • goodsweat

                      Hey Trace, the post above, I can’t see any ‘Reply’ button on it. Weird, are you a mod here? Please don’t be scared of me, I offer you no threat.

                      [lprent: The reply button disappears when the level of indent on comments reaches 10. You thought that it was infinite?

                      And tracy isn’t a mod. ]

                • felix

                  “there are 1000’s of pages on the internet to support your opinion and mine.”

                  Says you. All your assertions in this thread have been shown, by logic and reason, and by evidence presented, to be false.

                  Weirdly you haven’t been able to do the same regarding the assertions of others.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  Hi Tracey, yes, there are 1000’s of pages on the internet to support your opinion and mine.

                  But what we need are facts and there are no facts that support your beliefs. There are facts that support the Left.

                  Imagine being an Indian kid with big dreams, most never have a chance to go to a school. We are so lucky here.

                  And that is a logical fallacy. Just because somewhere else is worse off doesn’t mean that we have the best possible solution. And considering that the number in poverty in NZ has been increasing over the last thirty years would indicate that we have worst possible policies.

        • Tracey 5.8.1.2

          some people have been doing research just for you.

          We tend to think that simply giving people money makes them lazy. Yet a wealth of scientific research proves the contrary: free money helps. It is time for a radical reform of the welfare state…

          https://decorrespondent.nl/541/Why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20798745-cb9fbb39

  6. goodsweat 6

    Banks, yep, they grind my gears too. They produce nothing and turn astronomical profits only to ship them offshore. They contribute little and skim billions off this very thing I’m talking about: Productivity. No argument here re: banks…bleeders.

    • Tracey 6.1

      so the banks are an example of where no matter how productive the lower paid are, they wont benefit from the bigger pie theory from increased production you suggest for them to increase their wages?

      • goodsweat 6.1.1

        Productivity increases force wage increases for all the right reasons. I don’t think Labour’s plan to build so many houses was achievable, it robbed a good idea of credibility.

        Even if they got to 30% of their aspiration, the increased productivity would of had many spin off benefits. The demand for good tradies would of gone through the roof. Their naturallu induced increase in remuneration would pull the whole sector up, good hammer hands would cost $4 more an hour than a year earlier. A forward looking building Co would see a strong argument for training new carpenters.

        This is growing wages organically, not with a rubber stamp.

        • Tracey 6.1.1.1

          sorry? houses? you started talking about the pie to improve low wages. i gave you an example of a huge growth in pie not increasing low wages and you tangent off on lp housing policy?

          • Paul 6.1.1.1.1

            The tr*** isn’t debating. He/she is just diverting …paid or otherwise

            • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.1.1.1.1

              It’s also possible that debate is a foreign country to Goodsweat, who clearly doesn’t realise how revealing their failure to address Tracey’s argument is.

        • KJT 6.1.1.2

          “Not achievable”.

          We managed to build proportionately more houses in the 50’s, when we were supposedly much poorer.

          I commend your aims, but you need to do more research.

          Immigration keeps house prices high and wages low, for one. The economic boom promised for allowing an unsustainable level of immigration, never happened.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.3

          Productivity increases force wage increases for all the right reasons.

          No it doesn’t and never has. What productivity increases do in the present system is lower wages as less people are needed to do the same jobs. What productivity is supposed to do is to free people up to do different jobs and thus developing our economy but that doesn’t happen either.

          What happens is that all the gains from increased productivity goes to higher profits for the bludging shareholders and directors.

  7. Paul 7

    Nigel Latta.
    The New Haves and Have nots.
    Talaria and Sio.
    Their story shames New Zealand.

    Next time one of those tr**** gibbers on about how great NZ is, point to their story and this link.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/nigel-latta/s1-ep4-video-6025283

    • goodsweat 7.1

      Of all the countries in the world which ones do you think Talario and Sio would be better off in? It seems NZ would be at the bottom of any list you compiled. I quite like it here.

      • Tracey 7.1.1

        the operative word here is “I”

        NZ is not for everyone as it is for you…

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10716330/The-slums-of-Jebson-Pl

        shall we wait til children are rummaging in rubbish dumps before we decide we migt have a problem.

        every time a rise in the minimum wage is suggested, chicken littles emerge to tell us how businesses will go bust and the economy will fail. it doesnt. as posted here many times there is little or no evidence that increasing minimum wage results in job losses. if no one has the links handy i can find tgem when i come back.

        meantime can you post some sources to back your productivity and pie theory.

        • goodsweat 7.1.1.1

          Yes of course we can do things better, that should always be the case. What country do you think you would be better off in?

          I think we live in a beautiful part of the world under not perfect but pretty good circumstances. I could live in any other country, I have lived in a few. Granted, it’s home, but I feel I chose the best one. When I look at all those about me, I think they did too.

          Re: Sources to back up my opinion. I’m sure I could find them if I could be bothered looking. I suspect you’d refuse to recognise the source. I’d probably do the same with any sources you may present. That’s the thing about this Information Super Highway, you can find an official report to support any view about any thing.

          So, these are merely my opinions Tracey, agree, disagree, that’s cool. Quality debate is how we make a pretty good place even better for every single last one of us.

          • Paul 7.1.1.1.1

            It’s just you’re not providing quality debate.
            You are simply tr***ing.

            • goodsweat 7.1.1.1.1.1

              I’m sorry you feel that way Paul. It is not my intention.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                Refusing to provide citations is the hallmark of a tr*ll. Hi, I’m the third Billy Goat Gruff.

                You won’t find anything peer-reviewed to support your position, because your position is based on false beliefs. I can say this with confidence, since the last tr*ll who turned up here parroting the same crap, and the tr*ll before that, and the tr*ll before that, they were just as bereft of facts as you are.

                • goodsweat

                  Will my presenting you with reports written by a university educated academic change your way of thinking? Of course not. Looking for it is a waste of my time.

                  If you were doing the same thing for me the first thing I’d do is Google for all the critics that sledge your chap’s findings. Such is the internet. You can find a genuine bona fide report that proves anything. Spins the spin of choice. It’s become the natural home of the paradox.

                  Outside of raw untainted stats I’ve given up on placing weight in most of it and run on gut feel and experience. It is from that position that I comment. It’s the way I feel. I invite your debate but I’m not able to offer much in the way of evidence of how I feel other than identify it as the view supported by my gut feel and past experiences.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    Perhaps if you drop the notion that I’m relying on one “chap”‘s opinion the way you are we’ll get somewhere. Are these reports peer-reviewed? If not why not?

                    Your assertion that the living wage is inflationary, for example, sits uneasily with your comments about offering high wages being a path to success.

                    And then there are the parrots: is it a coincidence that they know so many of your lines?

                  • KJT

                    Raw, untainted stats are what National presents.

                    Like their claim that the “proportion’ of children in poverty has not increased in 6 years.

                    A lie by omission. They forget to mention because of our population increase, with migration, and births, the total number is increasing.

                    Or the other one. “Average wages have increased beyound the rate of inflation.
                    True, but wages for the poorer 80% have dropped.
                    Average wages are higher because of 17% plus pay rises at the top and casual or no employment dropping of the bottom.

                    Why, do you think there is not a chorus of inflation alarm-ism about , 17% plus rises to “executives” speculators and politicians?

                    Certainly inflates house prices, financial returns and money disappearing into the bottomless maw of the finance industry.

                    Inflation in housing, food, doctors bills and travel, things that people on low incomes have to pay for, have increased at well above the general inflation rate.

                    People at the bottom have been caught in a tide of rising prices and lowering income (only briefly slowed during the last Labour Government) since the “reforms”, that were supposed to make us ALL better off, in the 80’s and 90’s.

                • alwyn

                  I hope you aren’t calling everyone who doesn’t supply citations a tr*ll are you?
                  I have been curious about something Tracey said and where I asked for, but haven’t seen a citation.

                  The working poor

                  You wouldn’t call Tracey a tr*ll would you?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    Nope, I’m referencing Goodsweat’s refusal to provide citations, not their failure to thus far.

                    • weka

                      Goodsweat subscribes to the John Key school of knowledge: there’s no such thing as evidence, you just pay the right scientists/researcher to support your belief (or in this case, gut feeling).

                      Debate within the realms of fantasy.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Mr. Key only says that when it’s convenient. What he practices is another thing entirely.

              • Ad

                Goodsweat you need to step up your quality of debate if you’re going to be of any use around here.

              • Paul

                Of course…

          • Tracey 7.1.1.1.2

            you havent provided a single source to refute the post or support your assertions.

            great that you have choices of countries to live in. yay you. meanwhile fellow kiwis are living in ganglands and derelict areas trying to pay their bills. what y
            ou “think” doesnt change that.

            present credible sources and we will see what I accept.
            . assuming that I will behave the same way as you is the crux of your fallacy set out here. you think the world is for everyone as it is for you. its not. I care about that you dont. that is the biggest difference.

      • Paul 7.1.2

        You may like it here and it is clear you don’t care if life is utterly wretched for others living here.
        Which says a lot about your worldview.

      • Paul 7.1.3

        Did you watch Latta’s series?
        One of the most impressive aspects about it was Nigel Latta’s ability to be open to new ideas and overcome his prejudices.

        • goodsweat 7.1.3.1

          I tried clicking on your link Paul and was reminded that I’ve just used up my BB allowance for the month, more in 2 days. I’ll come back and look at it. I suspect I’m going to see a story of how in spite of one of the most generous welfare systems in the world this family are in dire need.

          People in dire need require immediate assistance. Once administered, avenues for finding ways for families to become self sufficient must be explored. We need to get better at this, it brings so much more than cash. We all want to feel like a contributing and valued part of our society.

          • Paul 7.1.3.1.1

            Judge after you watch it.
            Both of them work.
            And get paid dreadful wages.
            So not thing to do with welfare…..
            At first you seemed plausible but it’s starting to feel like discussing issues with srylands or chris73.
            Who did you vote for in the election?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.3.1.1.1

              This one has a modicum of self-awareness: “I suspect you’d refuse to recognise the source. I’d probably do the same with any sources you may present.”

              Ok, so they’re projecting crap ethics onto Tracey, and at least they acknowledge their own mental incapacity.

              • goodsweat

                Do you think people are more likely to consider what I have to say if I’m pleasant and amiable towards them?

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Contradictory facts harden false beliefs: “consideration” doesn’t come into it. You’re right about the value of emotion in debate though, emotional strategies have shown promise where logic fails: the Dunning-Kruger effect etc.

                  Amiable and pleasant are more-or-less forgettable though, dipshit 😈

            • goodsweat 7.1.3.1.1.2

              I’ll watch it when I can Paul. Yes, we must find a way for hard working and under-paid people to enjoy more of the fruits of life, the benefits are many fold, we agree there. I’m of the opinion that there are better ways than just passing a law and making it so.

              As I’ve stated, I believe inflation will gobble it and more. Most businesses in NZ employ a handful of people, if a wage bill goes up by $400 pw and productivity stays in exactly the same place, where will the money come from? Some might suggest that the boss lower his income from $2000 to $1600 a week. No matter if this is a good or bad idea, it’s unlikely to happen. The people with the air-conditioning units the boss looks after are going to get a letter a bit like the 30 he has already received “Dear Sir, due to increased staffing costs our charge out rate…blah blah

              Menial jobs are fast disappearing, soon it won’t matter what canning line staff are paid per week. I’m in support of Kelvin Davis re: what to do about this: education, education, education. That’s what it’s going to take in 30 years to be leading the life-styles we all aspire to.

              I was surprised to read that many of those mega mining trucks are no longer driven by people. They crawl their way up and down those coiling roads in open cast mines via GPS etc.

              I voted for that nice man with the teeth. I’m a bit over the left/right showdown. Any Labour government that appeals enough to win an election is going to be so like National, spotting a difference will be like playing Where’s Wally. I’m for people.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                I believe inflation will gobble it and more. Most businesses in NZ employ a handful of people, if a wage bill goes up by $400 pw and productivity stays in exactly the same place, where will the money come from?

                Right there: a false belief.

                1. Cullen raised the MW nine times in nine years, rises in the median wage outstripped inflation, and unemployment went down to the lowest level in recorded NZ history.

                2. Seattle: highest MW, lowest unemployment. The US is a great place to compare economic policies between states.

                So simply, where, on Earth, do your beliefs match reality? Surely it can’t be that hard: show us a place where they came true, because New Zealand ain’t it.

                • Tracey

                  no he didnt and no it didnt.

                  is this quality debate oab?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    I think the issue is whether Goodsweat (doncha jus’ lurve the dogwhistle implicit in the pseudonym?) can debate at all.

                    • Tracey

                      i agree…

                      theres no deoderant poweful enough to make the sweat of a troll, good.

                    • goodsweat

                      I get the feeling that you are trying to insult me away. It says way more about you than it does me.

                      There was bitter inflation during the last Labour term, it just depends what undeniable proof we want to refer to. That’s why I don’t.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Um, no, there wasn’t (cf: the median wage 1999-2008). I’m going to have to cite John Key and Bill English on that one. “this is the rainy day the government has been saving up for”, and so-on and so-forth.

                      You see? Another false belief, and here I am presenting contradictory facts which will harden your false belief: you will cling to it like a security blankie.

                    • Tracey

                      oab

                      what these guys dont address is more revealing than the posts they address.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Sure is Tracey 🙂

              • KJT

                http://www.ibtimes.com/minimum-wage-washington-after-16-years-state-highest-minimum-wage-maintains-lower-unemployment

                Washington State has, as the right wing claim, a higher level of 16 and 17 year olds not in paid work. They forget to mention it has one of the highest levels of 16 and 17 year olds in tertiary training.

  8. Foreign waka 8

    NZ and many other countries are grappling with the same issues:
    1/ the continued war is eating the biggest part of the economic pie
    2/ the concept on which the economies work is one of winners and losers. Unfortunately, the losers are now in the majority and the equilibrium is seriously disturbed. This has lead in some countries to the safest bet politically: Lets join a war to distract from the issues at home.
    3/ Environment and sustainability. The forests (lungs of the earth) are still disappearing at an astronomical rate and yet all those talk fests and carbon credit (business as usual) has not changed anything. Countries whose rainforest is being destroyed want to join the new dairy bonanza. Fair enough, it wont last very long though.
    4/ Technology and its advances. A complete factory that produces an output that could satisfy a large city (not NZ 🙂 ) can be run by 3 (!) people. This has been already proven. The issue of cause is that production would truly outstrip demand in 5 seconds flat. How are we going to deal with this, what decision need to be made for all without having justification for point 1?

  9. The whole point of NACTs economic policy is to drive beneficiaries into work to increase competition for casualised jobs, driving down wages and creating more casualised low-wage jobs and hence increased profits.

    Eroding workers rights to achieve this is therefore very important to them.

    They do it by dividing beneficiaries from low paid workers so that the underclass is presented as the enemy and not the capitalist system.

    Capitalism never has had an equilibrium. That is a lie spun by neo-classical economics.

    It is an anarchistic crisis-ridden system zero-sum system where the capitalists concentrate global wealth in the hands of the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

    Capitalism is today facing an existential crisis which means that unless it forces workers to pay for the crisis by driving down wages, the system may fail.

    Factor in that capitalism is also using up finite natural resources in a futile attempt to solve its crisis then it faces the inevitable double bang of near-term climate collapse.

    We have to make the fight for a living wage into the fight for the living.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1

      +1

      • KJT 9.1.1

        Hang on. Capitalism works fine, so long as there is a large dose of Socialism.

        The most successful economies in History are the ones with a sensible mix.

        • Murray Rawshark 9.1.1.1

          The times they are a changing, and the most successful economies in history have brought us global warming. Capitalism, which depends on growth, can no longer work for the good of the planet irrespective of the admixture of social democracy.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.2

          Nope, capitalism doesn’t work at all. This is because it inevitably results in too much wealth and power getting in to too few hands and those few then becoming plutocrats. This is what Piketty and history has shown us.

  10. The Other Mike 10

    The UK follows Minimum Wage trends already measured in the USA and elsewhere. Even the (Tory) UK PM Cameron supports MW (ahem Mr Key).

    From http://www.livingwage.org.uk/what-living-wage

    “Good for Business

    An independent study examining the business benefits of implementing a Living Wage policy in London found that more than 80% of employers believe that the Living Wage had enhanced the quality of the work of their staff, while absenteeism had fallen by approximately 25%.

    Two thirds of employers reported a significant impact on recruitment and retention within their organisation. 70% of employers felt that the Living Wage had increased consumer awareness of their organisation’s commitment to be an ethical employer.

    Following the adoption of the Living Wage PwC found turnover of contractors fell from 4% to 1%.

    Good for Families

    The Living Wage affords people the opportunity to provide for themselves and their families. [i.e. no Govt top-ups, aka Corporate Welfare]

    75% of employees reported increases in work quality as a result of receiving the Living Wage.

    50% of employees felt that the Living Wage had made them more willing to implement changes in their working practices; enabled them to require fewer concessions to effect change; and made them more likely to adopt changes more quickly.”

    No-brainer.

    • Tracey 10.1

      that settles that then. fortunately goodsweat didnt need to be right and will be pleased we can implement this without the sky falling. a win win day at the standard.

  11. goodsweat 11

    I’ve got nothing to hide, I’m sorry if I missed a post/question. I’m not striving to be right or wrong. I know I’m not Steve Hawking but jibes about anybody’s mental capacity do little to further discussions like this. If my intellect is beneath you, why just swing by to chuck stones? Ignore me.

    • Tracey 11.1

      are you a victim now?!?

      • goodsweat 11.1.1

        Goodness no, I love the humble life I’ve sculpted for myself. I’m just saying that belittling people for the way they feel is a pursuit for the shallow.

        • Tracey 11.1.1.1

          how they feel? i thought we were having a “quality debate” about what you think?

          • goodsweat 11.1.1.1.1

            Aren’t they the same thing?

            We have a productivity and a housing shortage. Those 2 should get married. When we can’t get a builder for love nor money, all wages will rise. By natural forces. Love it or hate it, we’re stuck with our free-market model…no Germans were trying to sneak into East Germany.

            I think an election win for Labour lived in their housing policy. Carefully managed it could of addressed many of the platform Labour issues and Joe Blow concerns. Training young people, lifting wages for the right reasons, housing shortage, creating opportunities. A fair go for everyone.

            When backed with action, hope and aspiration shouldn’t go unrewarded.

            Most of all it’s being constructive. Kiwis like that. Everyone does. All creatures are born to strive.

            • Tracey 11.1.1.1.1.1

              you believe thinking and feeling are the same thing. that is an interesting notion.

              you seem a confused wee kiwi. hopefully you find clarity, if that is something you seek.

            • KJT 11.1.1.1.1.2

              Well. If they had “left it to the market” for builders in Christchurch, instead of using immigration, legislation and a single labour buyer (Fletchers) to limit builders pay, they may have got some decent builders down there.

              However, Fletcher’s profits were more important.

              If they had done the opposite with housing, not “left it to the market”, with housing supply, New Zealand builders may have been able to afford to work down there, and build quality houses.

              However, delusional right wing Governments, will not do what works. They will do whatever it takes to maximise their funders profits.

              Builders wages have not risen, because our Government does whatever is necessary to make their mates richer and the country poorer.

            • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.1.1.3

              Aren’t they the same thing?

              No. Quality debate requires facts, not feelings or belief. The facts contradict your feelings.

              When we can’t get a builder for love nor money, all wages will rise. By natural forces.

              Capitalism isn’t natural and every time that it’s been tried has resulted in extensive poverty and the eventual collapse of the society that tried it.

              Love it or hate it, we’re stuck with our free-market model

              No we’re not.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2

      Even intellectuals cling to their security blankies when presented with inconvenient facts. Why should you be any different?

      All I asked you to do is cite somewhere on Earth where the things you believe come true. Still waiting.

  12. goodsweat 12

    I’m kidding, I’m fishing with another Trace.

    Forget me, how do we create a more balanced NZ?

    • Lloyd 12.1

      gOODSWEAT it is blindingly obvious – REPLACE THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT.

    • Tracey 12.2

      stop voting for, and accepting the status quo. give a shit for others less fortunate. understand that generosity applies not just to stuff but spirit.

    • framu 12.3

      stop tooling is a good start mate

      this whole thread is full of you behaving like a complete ass – to the point where its clear its deliberate.

      • goodsweat 12.3.1

        I’m not trying to be someone I’m not, I’m a natural complete ass.

        All I am essentially saying is: I believe we stand a better chance of building a more prosperous society for everyone if we do it via a considered increase in productivity as opposed to stating ‘As of next week everyone gets an extra 100 bucks.’

        Why do so many here feel threatened by my sharing this thought, compelled to come into the thread and contribute not much more than another gob of phlegm in my face. I guess it’s a bit like the flak Little seems to be copping for suggesting a review of the party stand on CGT.

        Strong and principled people can talk about any subject whatsoever without displaying the symptoms of fear.

  13. A voter 13

    If yo keep lying about the fact that most people are good honest workers and that the unions that represent them are out for personal gain off those workers and that only employers have the legal right to assess the what is a living wage thru their political reps in parliament then you have a serious problem with a bunch of fascist psycho rednecks Who need their clock cleaned
    HULLO JOHN AND CO. you tory waste of space

Recent Comments

Recent Posts