Whose side are you on?

212 comments on “Whose side are you on? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Wayne91 1

   6 October 2011 at 2:44 pm

   Hard to make a judgement one way or the other unless all the facts are known
   • Draco T Bastard 1.1

     6 October 2011 at 3:12 pm

     Doesn’t seem to stop the RWNJs from declaring anyone on a benefit a bludger.
     • big bruv 1.1.1

       6 October 2011 at 6:28 pm

       She is a bludger, anybody who takes from the system yet pays no tax can only be classed as such.

       Why the hell should I pay for her kids and her grandkids?

       We need to stop the rort that is WFF.
       • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1

         6 October 2011 at 6:30 pm

         Actually, we need to stop the outright theft that is capitalism and properly reward the people doing the actual work.
         • big bruv 1.1.1.1.1

           6 October 2011 at 7:03 pm

           They are already rewarded for the work they do, if they have skills then they will earn far in excess of the minimum wage.

           Those who put the capital into the business, take the risks and face a mountain of red tape and theft via taxes are the ones who deserve the rewards.
           • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.1.1

             6 October 2011 at 8:43 pm

             They are already rewarded for the work they do, if they have skills then they will earn far in excess of the minimum wage.

             That doesn’t actually work though does it BB? Plenty of people out there with the education and desire to work in their field who just can’t find jobs and when they do it’s paid massively below what they’re worth.

             Those who put the capital into the business, take the risks and face a mountain of red tape and theft via taxes are the ones who deserve the rewards.

             Then why aren’t they all in the poor house after the collapse of the markets?

             Answer: Theft by government bailout.
           • MrSmith 1.1.1.1.1.2

             7 October 2011 at 9:37 am

             Sorry to burst your bubble Burv, New Zealand under the last Government was voted the easiest country in the world to start and run a small business and is still in the top three.

             As for your usual rant about everyone getting rich and know-one being left to do the work argument, what a load of rubbish, I bet you would be the first to complain if cheap labour was brought in from over seas.

             http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_Doing_Business_Index
           • Anton 1.1.1.1.1.3

             8 October 2011 at 12:28 am

             She does pay tax, you moron – she works. And if nobody paid tax (because, as you say, it’s theft) watch all the services you use dry up.
       • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.2

         6 October 2011 at 6:56 pm

         Why the hell should I pay for her kids and her grandkids?

         If you don’t accept that you live in a community and that you have responsibilities to others in that community, please fuck off.
         • big bruv 1.1.1.2.1

           6 October 2011 at 7:08 pm

           “If you don’t accept that you live in a community and that you have responsibilities to others in that community, please fuck off.”

           I do accept that I have a responsibility, however people like her do not. She is happy to have more kids than she can afford safe in the knowledge that I will be the one who ends up paying for the brats.
           Only a moron (Such as yourself Viper) would suggest that the onus of responsibility lays with those who take personal responsibility, I am sick of paying for others, I am sick of having my money stolen from me every week so parasites can spend their life on the dole or their back by way of the DPB.

           Only when we start telling the parasites that the free ride is over can we ever hope catch Aussie.
           • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.2.1.1

             6 October 2011 at 7:11 pm

             Hey big bruv, people thieving from you is the least of your worries.
             • big bruv …

               6 October 2011 at 7:29 pm

               Oh really?, come on then Viper, tell me what my real concerns should be.

               (Seeing as you are desperate to tell me)

               By the way, I don’t have a lot of problem with thief’s around my place, having between two and five very large dogs tends to keep the Labour voting scum away.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 6 October 2011 at 7:34 pm

                 🙂 Enjoy your temporary feeling of protection, Tory scum, fear is never far from a RWNJ.
               • mik e …

                 6 October 2011 at 8:16 pm

                 BB little brain you must work for Treasury.I take you won’t be voting National then with 24,00 more on the DPB since National took office.It must be all those mysogynistic{family neglecter’s women abusers] males like yourself that women have had to get away from.Using your logic[ no emotional intelligence obviously you are mentally ill get it seen to and stop abusing the National party}labour had the lowest figures in 30 years, and your mate John Key was brought up by a solo mum, Don bene basher left 2 solo mums that we know of so far.well using your logic you should be singing the praises of the labour party but given the state of your mental health we understand.
                 • felix …

                   6 October 2011 at 9:34 pm

                   I don’t think bb works for treasury. I don’t think bb works at all.

                   I think bb is a beneficiary, and full of self hatred.
           • Mutante 1.1.1.2.1.2

             6 October 2011 at 7:38 pm

             Fuck off out of here then you miserable sod.

             Have you ever been mugged?

             That would give you something to cry about.
             • big bruv …

               6 October 2011 at 8:01 pm

               Sigh…

               Once again the pathetic left revert to violence as a mens of making a point.

               As it happens I have twice been the ‘victim’ of an attempted mugging, once in Wellington and once in Edinburgh. On both occasions the mugger was less than successful.

               Actually, come to think of it I was mugged every week for nine long years by the previous government, they stole money from me every week and gave it to those who could not be bothered getting off their backsides to find work, all in return for votes.

               Thankfully I get to keep a lot more of what I earn these days however it is still bloody criminal what this government steals from me.

               At least I can look forward to at least another six years (probably nine) of lower taxes before the scum from Labour look like forming a government, mind you, by then I will have it all safely tucked away so the bastards cannot use my money to bribe the parasites and DPB slappers.
               • mik e …

                 6 October 2011 at 8:17 pm

                 stop talking about paula bennett like that BB
                 • big bruv …

                   6 October 2011 at 8:31 pm

                   Not used to Labour female MP’s having kids are you Mik e

                   Why is that anyway?
                   • Ianupnorth …

                     6 October 2011 at 9:03 pm

                     BB when are you going to come out? Come on big boy, we know all this macho stuff, flexing your big butch muscles turns you on. Off down K Road for a bit of glory hole action big boy?
                   • mik e …

                     7 October 2011 at 10:25 pm

                     Because there are to many men like you around no self respecting woman would want to have children to a emotionally vacant bean brained bean counting superiority complex idiot like you .
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 6 October 2011 at 8:48 pm

                 Taxes aren’t theft BB, they’re charges for services rendered. Don’t want the services – then fuck off.
                 • big bruv …

                   6 October 2011 at 10:02 pm

                   All tax is theft Draco, when you have something stolen from you against your will it is theft.
                   • RedLogix …

                     6 October 2011 at 10:14 pm

                     As long as you choose to live in this country you are legally required to pay the tax bill for public services rendered. If you don’t want to incur that bill… live elsewhere.

                     Failure to pay your bills is theft.
                   • mik e …

                     7 October 2011 at 10:05 pm

                     bbbean brain Its the price we pay for democracy
               • Puddleglum …

                 6 October 2011 at 9:56 pm

                 “Actually, come to think of it I was mugged every week for nine long years by the previous government, they stole money from me every week and gave it to those who could not be bothered getting off their backsides to find work, all in return for votes”

                 big bruv, do you honestly think that those who push for a more progressive tax system are primarily doing so to get votes for a particular party (or parties)? Is no-one doing it because they believe it corrects the harm that this kind of economic system inflicts in a systematic manner and disproportionately on those with little capacity to fight back against the damage it does? 

                 Seriously, do you honestly think it’s all a big effort to get votes? Isn’t it possible that those who advocate such taxes and social support know full well that there are many, like you, who resent taxation and so may not vote for such a party? Might it not be that their conscience and understanding of how society works itself out in the lives of individuals makes them, nevertheless, advocate for a policy that may well lose them as many votes as it might gain them?

                 Have you ever considered that if some politicians are simply concerned about getting votes then they might just advocate lower taxes in order to gain the support of the ‘middle class’ even though they know that lower taxes and less social spending inflict harm on individuals? 
                 • big bruv …

                   6 October 2011 at 10:16 pm

                   “big bruv, do you honestly think that those who push for a more progressive tax system are primarily doing so to get votes for a particular party (or parties)?”

                   Of course they are, they pander to the neanderthal element who want what others have without doing the work, it is the whole ‘rick prick’ mentality that blights this nation of losers.

                   “Is no-one doing it because they believe it corrects the harm that this kind of economic system inflicts in a systematic manner and disproportionately on those with little capacity to fight back against the damage it does? ”

                   What the hell is harmful about being rewarded for working hard and taking a chance?, you seem to be suggesting that those who do well or have a good idea should earn little more than those who waste their tax payer funded education and sit on their arse all day.

                   “Seriously, do you honestly think it’s all a big effort to get votes?”

                   Yes.

                   “Isn’t it possible that those who advocate such taxes and social support know full well that there are many, like you, who resent taxation and so may not vote for such a party?”

                   They are not pitching at me for support, they are talking to the lazy, the idle and the incompetent who want everything given to them, failing that they detest being reminded how miserable their life’s are and want to drag everybody else back to the heaving pack of losers.

                   “Might it not be that their conscience and understanding of how society works itself out in the lives of individuals makes them, nevertheless, advocate for a policy that may well lose them as many votes as it might gain them?”

                   Name one politician who does that?, all these “progressive” tax policies are aimed at those who have little and have no intention of ever striving to better themselves.

                   “Have you ever considered that if some politicians are simply concerned about getting votes then they might just advocate lower taxes in order to gain the support of the ‘middle class’ even though they know that lower taxes and less social spending inflict harm on individuals? ”

                   Utter rubbish, decades of “social spending” show that welfare is the problem, we keep handing out the productive sectors money to those who have no intention of working and look at the mess we are in. What is even crazier is that you lot think the answer is to give the idle even more!

                   The mark of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting to see different results, thirty plus years of the ‘progressive’ agenda has not worked, it is time you got out of the way and let somebody else have a crack, a bit of tough love and reality is what is needed.
                   • Jum …

                     6 October 2011 at 10:59 pm

                     Once again you’ve jumped a thread from your other responsibilities big bruv.

                     You’d make an awful father.

                     Answer my questions on the Opportunism thread. Until you do that, we can only assume you are both a dullard and a fuckwit. Your intelligence is certainly not under suspicion – you don’t have any!
                   • Ianupnorth …

                     6 October 2011 at 11:40 pm

                     Going to Mardi Gras big boy?
                      
                   • Puddleglum …

                     6 October 2011 at 11:55 pm

                     “What the hell is harmful about being rewarded for working hard and taking a chance?, you seem to be suggesting that those who do well or have a good idea should earn little more than those who waste their tax payer funded education and sit on their arse all day.”

                     There’s nothing harmful about being rewarded for working hard and taking a chance. The harm I’m talking about is an outcome of how our economy typically works. As Joseph Schumpeter put it, it ‘creatively destroys’ economic apparatuses (e.g., companies, technologies, etc.) on a regular basis. It’s that instability that destroys and undermines people’s efforts too.

                     When that creative destruction happens – and in many people’s lives it happens all too frequently, especially since the 1980s – those who suffer the most from it are not the well-established (whether investors, business people, families, entrepreneurs or managers) but those who are at the first or lower ‘rungs’ of the hierarchy of wealth, power, skills, ‘networks’, etc.. The first part of the climb, if you like, is the hardest. Those damaged most by these sorts of episodes are, as I said, the least able to respond effectively to them. They suffer. Disproportionately.

                     Tough love won’t help here, big bruv. Most of these people are doing their best – just as much as any of us (including the millionaires amongst us) are doing our best. It’s just a convenient piece of rhetoric to claim they aren’t. Those with ‘bad jobs’ (i.e., low paid) are no more or less ‘slacking off’ than are  the people who have ‘good jobs’ (high paid) or businesses.
                     I know of no evidence that they have less of the ‘hard work’ virtue than those more handsomely rewarded. Do you have some evidence? (other than the rewards themselves, of course).
                   • mik e …

                     7 October 2011 at 9:56 pm

                     Big bully the results of a world wide survey we don’t like or hate [rich tax dodgers]than any other developed country just more right wining BS propaganda thats why nactional can only deliver 1% growth in five years under bills english. The solution throughout history economic history is if you spread money around you get more economic growth. Bean Brain bean counters cost accountants can’t see that even though the economic research is there to prove it.
                   • mik e …

                     7 October 2011 at 10:30 pm

                     Misogynists generally have a mental illness [andres brevik ]being emotionally aloof thinking logically only[rednecks] is a sign get some help Big Bully Join a club and stop clubbing the poorest and weakest.
                   • mik e …

                     7 October 2011 at 10:32 pm

                     BENE bashing ain’t going to create any more jobs except in mortuaries policing and the justice system .Neither is borrowing and hoping.
                 • Misanthropic Curmudgeon …

                   7 October 2011 at 2:37 pm

                   Discriminating on the grounds of income, (being taking more from one than you do another) is not pregressive.

                   It is oppressive, discriminatory, and envious. Not progressive.
                   • McFlock …

                     7 October 2011 at 2:48 pm

                     Well, when 50% of the prison inmates are in the top 20% of income earners, then they might have some idea of what real oppression and discrimination actually is. And taking money to reduce other people’s suffering isn’t “envy”, it’s “living in a society”.  
                       
                     The more you bleat, the more obvious it is that you have absolutely no idea about the level of pain in this country. It might not be Somalia, but it isn’t Remuera, either.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     7 October 2011 at 10:10 pm

                     That shut the fucker up McFlock.

                     Apparently wealthy multi-millionaires are the new disadvantaged minority group!

                     Morons. How do these people even make cornflakes for breakfast.
           • seeker 1.1.1.2.1.3

             7 October 2011 at 12:00 am

             Big Bruv, you are a poor lost soul. Charles Dickens wrote of a person like you. He was visited by three ghosts. I hope they visit you soon and show you the real Christmas so that we don’t have to read your life sucking vitriol anymore. It is really too inhuman and sickening. Get well soon.
           • Rosemary 1.1.1.2.1.4

             8 October 2011 at 4:11 pm

             bb – Move over to Hong Kong. I’m sure Cack Cack will put you up til you’re on your feet. Shit, she might even take you on!
2. Idiot/Savant 2

   6 October 2011 at 2:51 pm

   Masoe and other minimum wage workers aren’t asking for the world. We’re just asking for a third of John Key’s wage.

   Less than a third. You’ve computed Key’s hourly rate on total hours in a year. Odinary people only get paid when they work.

   Key’s hourly rate, assuming a ~80 hour week, is around $100 an hour. Nice money if you can get it.
   • Lanthanide 2.1

     6 October 2011 at 3:02 pm

     Or as a standard 40-hour week job, $192.31/hr.
     • sthnjeff 2.1.1

       6 October 2011 at 3:04 pm

       And you seriously think he works 40 hours a week?
       • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1

         6 October 2011 at 3:11 pm

         Where did I say that?

         I simply restated Key’s salary in terms of a 40-hour working week. The original post is asking for the minimum wage to be 1/3rd of Key’s hourly wage. But his actual 40-hour week hourly wage is $192/hr. Someone working on the minimum wage for 40 hours a week would need to be earning $64/hr to be on 1/3rd his hourly rate.

         Also, given how often he isn’t in parliament, is off in Hawaii (in excess of the 20 days annual leave everyone gets by law) and doing radio shows, his average working week may not be too much longer than 40 hours.
       • sally 2.1.1.2

         6 October 2011 at 3:13 pm

         Does that include the hour the taxpayer paid him to talk about his cat on Radio Pathetic earlier this week?
   • Bored 2.2

     6 October 2011 at 3:14 pm

     Actually worked on 1920 hours a year available for a cleaner (barring OT)….Keys on around $208.33 per hour. Its not nearly as obscene as Reynolds or Weldon or similar “irreplaceable” pillocks.
     • Vicky32 2.2.1

       6 October 2011 at 5:38 pm

       Keys on around $208.33 per hour. Its not nearly as obscene as Reynolds or Weldon or similar “irreplaceable” pillocks.

       But it is pretty obscene! It’s more than the weekly UB rate for a single person!
       • TightyRighty 2.2.1.1

         7 October 2011 at 9:08 am

         What sort of idiotic comparison is that? someone who works versus someone who doesn’t? fucking simple you are. someone take away the keyboard before she hurts herself
       • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 2.2.1.2

         7 October 2011 at 11:18 am

         Key’d probably do more productive good in one hour that the average unemployed/unemployable person would in one week!
         • Puddleglum 2.2.1.2.1

           7 October 2011 at 1:07 pm

           “Key’d probably do more damage in one hour that the average unemployed/unemployable person would in one week!”

           FIFY 

           Exertion on one’s own behalf doesn’t necessarily result in an improvement in the common good.
           • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 2.2.1.2.1.1

             7 October 2011 at 2:44 pm

             Lets just pretens that your edit of my comments was right for a moment.

             Are you one of these people on this blog who whine about him going on holiday?
             • Puddleglum …

               7 October 2011 at 2:55 pm

               🙂 No, actually.

               But, now you mention it, a permanent holiday for him … well, let me think. I suppose it would depend on what his ‘idle hands’ got up to, wouldn’t it? A few extra financial dealings or advice to major merchant banks might do even more damage ..

               More seriously, my point was that those who have considerable political power or economic clout (or both) can do as much harm as good.

               Where are the ‘punishments’ in the system for those with such power or clout, should they inflict harm? I can see the punishments for someone who is unemployed but not for these (politically, financially and economically) powerful people, despite their proven ability to do considerable harm – e.g., the GFC, impoverishment of countries, etc..
3. millsy 3

   6 October 2011 at 2:57 pm

   It doesn’t help that the rent is too damn high.

   She pays $250 probably for a rat infested hovel. It will probably go higher too when National’s plan to destory state housing is complete.

   And I get sick of people bagging cleaners, they perform just as vital a job as anyone else. Keeping everyone’s space clean.
   • Lanthanide 3.1

     6 October 2011 at 3:04 pm

     Parliament’s cleaners should strike. I guess you need to be the member of a union to do it all official-like, though?
     • Blighty 3.1.1

       6 October 2011 at 3:21 pm

       they are unionised, that’s how they got a campaign going. Judging from question time today, I think their collective negotiations are happening, which is the one of the only times you are legally allowed to strike
       • KJT 3.1.1.1

         6 October 2011 at 5:01 pm

         A lot of people do not realise that under today’s law, Sam Purnell’s industrial action for an 8 hour day would be illegal.

         RWNJ’s complaining about regulation from the left (Nanny State) seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that most regulation restricting human rights and freedoms comes from the right.
         • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 3.1.1.1.1

           7 October 2011 at 11:36 am

           I’ll remember that the next time discussion of regulating shower heads, regulating lightbulbs, compulsory unionism, et al comes up.
   • Bored 3.2

     6 October 2011 at 3:18 pm

     Millsy, you are onto it. Where wealth disparity really hits home is on costs that cannot be substituted such as housing, power and food. On Maslows hierarchy of needs the absolute basics are at threat from the rapacious nature of our economy, such as rentals.
     • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1

       6 October 2011 at 3:27 pm

       The absolute basics need to be guaranteed by society. Unfortunately we have a psychopathic socio-economic system that says that you need to work as hard as you can to make some other arse-hole richer and then be grateful for the scraps that they toss you (if they toss you any at all).
4. JT 4

   6 October 2011 at 3:13 pm

   The Right are psychopathic (though I believe that label has been officially superceded now). They love to spout about “personal responsibility” like automated voice diodes. If they position the economic climate to starve a child, or ruin the health of a man, encourage the hopelessness that precedes suicide or just generally shut out a certain socio-economic group, it’s none of their doing. The starving child through to the suicidal man made “bad choices”. Anything the victim feels is an invention of their own psyche and their responsibility. But fight back against corruption, hell, even just stand up for the rights the law suggests apply regardless of social status and the Right turn into frothing hate mongers. Everyone is out to get them! They offer only growth and the poor only want to steal! Bludgers! Scumbags! – they scream. The irrational change of philosophical face isn’t their responsibly though. Not in their eyes. The poor made them do it. Personal responsibility works only one way for those people.
   I appreciate the psychopathic tendencies of modern life, but none of us should encourage it by waffling out political slogans that are abbreviated distortions of psychological research. The original research was conducted to heal people. Politicians use it to oppress and destroy. Big difference.
   • Pete 4.1

     6 October 2011 at 6:47 pm

     I have read both the left and right blogs on this, and honestly I haven’t seen any personal attacks by the blog operators. In fact they seem to have been careful to avoid this. There have been intemperate comments from time to time, just as there are here.
     Personally, I would be happy for her to have $15 per hour (knowing nothing about her circumstances).
     It is relevant to point out that she does benefit from working for families and that Key donates all his salary to charity, so your question is a little dishonestly framed.
     • Pete 4.1.1

       6 October 2011 at 6:49 pm

       The above was not a response to JT – I just clicked at the wrong time!
     • Oscar 4.1.2

       6 October 2011 at 8:56 pm

       That’s a discredited Meme. Put in an OIA to get Keys Tax Credit claim for his charitable contributions.
       The result? Nada.
       • Pete 4.1.2.1

         6 October 2011 at 10:08 pm

         What am I, your research assistant? Discredited by whom? If you have some information, then share it, otherwise your innuendoes are pointless.
         • felix 4.1.2.1.1

           6 October 2011 at 10:47 pm

           Discredited by the fact that to date no one has shown a single shred of evidence for the claim or solved either of the following questions.

           Key was quoted once before the election as saying he intended to donate “a good part” of his salary to charity or “good causes”. (That’s the only relevant quote anyone has found btw, knock yourself out if you think you can find another).

           The questions are:

           1. What is a “good part”? 50%? 25%? 10%? 5%? 2.5%? 1%? You tell me, ‘cos Key didn’t.

           2. What is a “good cause”? His kid’s school? A fundamentalist nutjob church? The National Party? Could be anything.

           Typical Key-speak. Sounds nice but means nothing.
           • Pete 4.1.2.1.1.1

             7 October 2011 at 8:22 am

             If Goff said he donated all his salary to charity then I would accept that. The consequences of him being wrong would be considerable. I would give Key the same latitude.
             • framu …

               7 October 2011 at 9:16 am

               so nothing to back up your claim then?

               you can beleive it if you want – no one can stop you.

               but if you claim it as truth you need to show evidence.
               • Pete …

                 7 October 2011 at 2:02 pm

                 I don’t need to show anything. You are the doubter, that’s your job. I haven’t made any claims. I merely stated what was in the public record. If you think that is wrong, then state why.
                 If you have evidence that he doesn’t donate his salary to charity, then trot it out.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   7 October 2011 at 2:08 pm

                   If you have evidence that he doesn’t donate his salary to charity, then trot it out.

                   You mean a charity like the Waitemata Trust?
                 • McFlock …

                   7 October 2011 at 2:12 pm

                   ” I haven’t made any claims. I merely stated what was in the public record. ”

                   Bullshit:
                   “It is relevant to point out that she does benefit from working for families and that Key donates all his salary to charity, ” (my italics).

                     
                   It that’s in the public record, feel free to provide a source. After all, it is an explicit claim that Key donates all his salary to charity.
                    
                   Typical tory – it’s one thing to have an error in fact (everyone accidentally does it sooner or later). It’s another thing entirely to forget what you claimed a couple of posts higher in the same damned thread.
                   • Pete …

                     7 October 2011 at 5:25 pm

                     Firstly, I am not a Tory (my family and I are multi generational labour supporters until recently), secondly, it has been widely reported that he donates all his salary, and I simply drew attention to this. I repeat, if you believe it is wrong then say how, otherwise you are just blowing steam.
                     Pity some of you are so blinded by hate and fanaticism that civil discussion is nigh impossible.
                   • McFlock …

                     7 October 2011 at 5:41 pm

                     ” it has been widely reported that he donates all his salary, and I simply drew attention to this. I repeat, if you believe it is wrong then say how, otherwise you are just blowing steam.
                     ”

                     I believe it is wrong because he has a history of misleading people. He is a politician. I would agree that it has been widely commented (by toryboy defenders of the faith) that he gives his money to charity, but nobody has provided a skerrick of proof or even a quote where he says that he definitely will or does. 
                      
                     Where has it “been reported”? YOU made the statement – put up some evidence to support it. 

                       
                     Or . . . maybe I should just say “It has been reported that John Key said he never gives any money to charity, he spends his prime ministerial salary on P and hookers. If you believe I’m wrong say how”. See what I did there? BTW, I don’t really believe he spends his money on P and hookers. He’s a craven slimey coward and probably a high-functioning sociopath who’s drunk in charge of a country, but probably isn’t a P-addicted hooker client.
           • felix 4.1.2.1.1.2

             8 October 2011 at 12:34 am

             Pete,

             “If Goff said he donated all his salary to charity then I would accept that. The consequences of him being wrong would be considerable. I would give Key the same latitude.”

             Good for you, we’re now at square one.

             Do you have a source for your claim that Key donates all of his salary? So far no-one has provided one but if you can, then please do.

             Let me know how you get on.
5. queenstfarmer 5

   6 October 2011 at 3:51 pm

   Politics of envy 101.
   • Dv 5.1

     6 October 2011 at 4:07 pm

     Why is key envious of the cleaner?
     • McFlock 5.1.1

       6 October 2011 at 4:37 pm

       Because the cleaner has some level of empathy with other human beings.
       • Pete 5.1.1.1

         7 October 2011 at 9:02 pm

         No reply button for your last comment above. You really should see someone about all that hate and anger – it can’t be doing you any good. Over and out!
     • queenstfarmer 5.1.2

       6 October 2011 at 5:58 pm

       Did I say he was? My question is why is the author envious of Key?
       • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1

         6 October 2011 at 7:13 pm

         Politics of Greed and Avarice 101. Go ahead, teach us the course material qstf.
   • alex 5.2

     6 October 2011 at 4:26 pm

     Are you suggesting cleaners don’t work hard?
     • queenstfarmer 5.2.1

       6 October 2011 at 5:53 pm

       Not at all. I’m referring to the author of the post.
       • mik e 5.2.1.1

         6 October 2011 at 6:00 pm

         QSF politics of elitism cleaner does a good job gets sfa, shonkey stuffs economy leaves it in debt up $76 billion {like a failed finance company ]gets $400,000 plus a $20to$30,000 pay rise
       • felix 5.2.1.2

         6 October 2011 at 6:42 pm

         Where’s the envy, framer?
   • One Anonymous Bloke 5.3

     6 October 2011 at 4:45 pm

     Witless slogan in place of an argument, you must be a National Party supporter.
     • Lanthanide 5.3.1

       6 October 2011 at 4:52 pm

       Yeah, qsf has seriously gone down in my estimation these last few weeks. When he first turned up on the scene I was quite impressed by a lot of his arguments and clean, unemotional posts.

       No longer.
       • tc 5.3.1.1

         6 October 2011 at 6:23 pm

         Always looked like a troll to me…….the subtle nuances were clever but the underlying theme was always to promote the nats with the odd exception which created the illusion of ‘balance’.

         Still nice work if you can get it, theres a few of them out there.
       • queenstfarmer 5.3.1.2

         6 October 2011 at 6:39 pm

         Gosh, ‘scuse my brevity. I’ll spell it out a bit more then. Let’s see:

         Referring to the taking of “sides” class warfarism – check.
         Immediately noting how much the PM earns – check.
         Noting that the PM wore a fancy suit to a Royal Wedding – check.
         Referring to the PM being in Hawaii – check.
         Referring to how much other workers make – check.
         Raising straw-man arguments – check.
         Saying that those “at the top” suffer from “greed” – check.

         all of which are irrelevant to this poor working “victim’s” actual needs.

         So there you go, KD’s post is a perfect example of the politics of envy.
         • felix 5.3.1.2.1

           6 October 2011 at 6:43 pm

           What’s wrong with comparing jobs and pay?

           Not allowed?
           • Colonial Viper 5.3.1.2.1.1

             6 October 2011 at 7:14 pm

             CEOs always compare their salaries, benefits and stock options with each other. So why not eh.
             • Akldnut …

               6 October 2011 at 11:59 pm

               Didn’t hear qsf complaining when Lardy Bennett was comparing the take home pay of two benificiaries for the public to make up their minds about reasonable pays,

               Double standards anyone??? Big time
               • Misanthropic Curmudgeon …

                 7 October 2011 at 11:41 am

                 Benefit entitlements/levels are public information: simple maths on base benefits, accomodation allowances, ‘extra-kid-payments’ and the like can tell you what a beneficary (minimally) gets.

                 Doing that calculation and then discussing it is hardly a breach of anybodies privacy (unless you want benefit entitlements/levels to be a state secret?)
                 • felix …

                   8 October 2011 at 12:35 am

                   And the same applies to the PM’s salary you moron.
                   • Misanthropic Curmudgeon …

                     10 October 2011 at 3:40 pm

                     I never said it did. What on earth are you talking about?

                     What I noted was that benefit calculations are simple affiars using publicially avaiable data. There is no ‘invasion of privacy’ in doing those numbers and discussing them.
         • mik e 5.3.1.2.2

           6 October 2011 at 8:21 pm

           QSF so the cleaners do a good job on starvation wages , Treasury takes tax payers to the cleaners most salaries inexcess of $200,ooo thats your politics of corruption
         • Lanthanide 5.3.1.2.3

           6 October 2011 at 8:48 pm

           Much better. Just dropping out a slogan without any actual explanation makes it look like you’re just dropping a slogan but don’t understand what it actually means.
         • Puddleglum 5.3.1.2.4

           6 October 2011 at 10:54 pm

           This slogan ‘the politics of envy’ needs careful analysis.

           Your checklist, qsf, only indicates the presence of an appeal to ‘envy’ on a particular set of assumptions.

           Here’s an alternative explanation. The starting point is that each of those points is, in fact, evidence for – or rhetoric against – a system that provides rewards in a fundamentally unjust manner.

           That is, all those points need not be seen as some attempt to stir up the emotion of envy but, rather, as an appeal to the listener’s sense of fairness, on the assumption that fairness can be determined independently of the way in which the economic system does, in fact, reward various economic actors. That is, on the assumption that the notion of a just reward for effort and skill is not defined tautologically by what those rewards happen to be.

           Hayek thought that the anonymity of markets meant that the rewards (and ‘punishments’) they dished out would be easier to bear, because they were not the result of someone’s deliberate decision. Well, I think he got that wrong since the economic system he believed was above the political arena was, itself, erected by the decisions of particular individuals and interests and imposed upon the unwilling.

           To be aware of that is not to be ‘envious’, it is to be possessed of a sense of active morality and justice. It is to believe that it is possible, and necessary, to come to some moral judgment about the way an economy distributes its rewards.

           To use the slogan ‘the politics of envy’ is to buy into Hayek’s analysis of, and conclusions about, the moral status of economic processes. That is, it is to agree that the rewards received by various individuals have been determined by the only truly moral mechanism available – the myriad transactions of ‘free’ economic actors.

           Those who disagree are likely to use the points you put in your checklist to emphasise the injustice of that process of distributing rewards. As I said, that’s not a cheap, rabble-rousing appeal to envy but an attempt to demonstrate unfairness. How else could such unfairness be pointed out?

           Relying on the slogan ‘the politics of envy’ cheapens the debate over some quite fundamental differences in the ways in which our economic world is understood to operate.

           Please resist the easy temptation to use the phrase.  
           • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 5.3.1.2.4.1

             7 October 2011 at 1:33 pm

             Your argument seeks to disassociate thought from action.

             There is some validity to your observation regarding observing a situation and perceiving and injustice as not neccessarlty veing envy. However, that observation becomes envy when the observer seeks to intervene to take what he thinks is his due, therefore validating the expression.

             Hence, the accusation that ‘redistribution’ policies of tax-n-spend so beloved of the left are expresions of envy: they not only perceive an injustice but seek to act on it and impose their will.
             • Puddleglum …

               7 October 2011 at 3:11 pm

               Thanks for the response, MC.

               I accept that policies to put in place increasingly progressive tax rates can appeal to the envious. But my argument was about the motives of those proposing the taxes rather than the motives of some sub-set of those who might support such policies.

               On another point, I don’t think that imposing progressive tax rates suddenly makes a policy an expression of envy when the advocacy of the policy is not an expression of envy. 

               Now, I am not, in the following, arguing that ‘income is theft’ but I don’t think anyone would say that when the courts impose a redistribution of property from a thief to its owner that that imposition of redistribution must be an expression of envy (everyone is envious of the thief for gaining the property). Usually, we would call that ‘imposition’ justice. 

               I don’t see why imposition of a democratically supported policy of redistribution suddenly makes something an expression of envy (it’s a logical point). 

               I tried to get my head around this ‘politics of envy’ stuff here.

               One of the ironies, for me, is that a good proportion of our economic activity (e.g., in relation to consumption) is the best example I can think of of an expression of the operation of envy in our society. Policies to encourage that consumption driver are, in effect, the real ‘politics of envy’.

               Our economy is all about making people envious of what others possess so that they will ‘aspire’ to gain those things. 
               • Misanthropic Curmudgeon …

                 7 October 2011 at 3:58 pm

                 The link you provided to another post of yours makes interesting reading around the right-wings co-opting of ‘envy’ into achievment and aspiration, but (unless I missed it) your post misses a key distintion you fail to make in your arguemant (your arguemet being that the right is hypcritcal in this):

                 The right-wings envy (by way of achievment and aspiration) is founded on volunatry betterment of the self and subsequently/concequently the community. In effect, lifting one or the whole through choice and action.

                 The left-wings ‘politics of envy’ focuses on compulsory equality through reducing the individual in the (mistaken) belief that taking from one and givingto the other is the way to betterment of the the community. In effect, dragging down one or the whole through compulsion.

                 For this reasom I think your attemp at linking the two fails.
                 • KJT …

                   7 October 2011 at 4:21 pm

                   The right wings achievement and aspiration. You mean the right wings pinching of others achievements.
                   The right wing is all about leveraging off the efforts of the real wealth creators to transfer it into their own hands.

                   They have taken so much money out of New Zealand that there is none for productive and sustainable investment.

                   What wealth did Key produce?

                   What new companies with new ideas come from NACT supporters? Most are corporate hacks who believe that their exorbitant pay from their connections to the old boy network reflect their real value.

                   What happened to small and medium businesses during Ruthanasia, Rogernomics, now.
                   The entrepreneurs, skilled workers and small businesses, the real wealth creators, do better under left wing parties.
                 • Puddleglum …

                   7 October 2011 at 6:11 pm

                   Yes, some people talk about ‘good’ envy (that inspires others to aspire to what someone has) versus ‘bad’ envy (wishing to remove or destroy what others have in order to ‘equalise’ the situation).

                   But envy is a morally and psychologically unhealthy motive whichever way you cut it. People who desire what others have are less happy, less satisfied and more at risk of psychological disorders. I’m not sure how that leads to the betterment of the community.

                   It’s pretty well-established in the literature that focusing on your own particular talents, skills and values – rather than on the acquisition of replicas of things possessed by others (cars, houses, clothes, looks, etc.) – is a more functional and subjectively better way to live. 
                   • Misanthropic Curmudgeon …

                     10 October 2011 at 3:46 pm

                     You say that “envy is a morally and psychologically unhealthy motive whichever way you cut it” and then go on to say we ought to be “focusing on your own particular talents, skills and values – rather than on the acquisition of replicas of things possessed by others”

                     I’d argue that some degree of ‘envy’ for what one does not have is a key component of aspiration, or acheivement, of engineering, of building swers and sanitation and first world medical facilities. This is done by those very skills talenst and attributes you mention.

                     Your position seems to be that of apathy and resignation?
                   • McFlock …

                     10 October 2011 at 4:44 pm

                     MC:
                     That just proves you haven’t looked up ” envy ” in the dictionary recently.

                     “a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another’s advantages, success, possessions, etc. ”
                      
                     I can aspire to do good work without being jealous of another’s greater skill. I guess you can’t.
   • Draco T Bastard 5.4

     6 October 2011 at 4:46 pm

     You’ll note in this video that psychopaths want others to envy them. This puts an interesting light on the Politics of Envy meme brought up by the RWNJs as it’s obvious that what they really want is others to be envious of them and so they’re projecting their wants onto others as motivation. It’s all lies and misdirection of course. As I’ve said before, it’s not envy but disgust for the greed and selfishness of the rich.
     • Colonial Viper 5.4.1

       6 October 2011 at 7:15 pm

       RWNJs always accuse others of the emotions and attitudes that they hold personally themselves.
       • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5.4.1.1

         7 October 2011 at 3:15 pm

         Colonial Viper you are witty and charming. You are also hung like a rogue baboon.
         • Puddleglum 5.4.1.1.1

           7 October 2011 at 3:25 pm

           🙂 That’s clever.

           And – excepting the second sentence – is evidence for its own implied claim. 
6. King Kong 6

   6 October 2011 at 4:40 pm

   Why don’t we put up the minimum wage to $50 an hour and then everyone live like kings…kngs I tell ya.
   • Draco T Bastard 6.1

     6 October 2011 at 4:49 pm

     Stupid non-argument from a stupid RWNJ.
   • ghostwhowalksnz 6.2

     6 October 2011 at 5:03 pm

     Why dont we give a tiny elite huge bonuses of $ 0.5 mill or more a year to make sure they allocate financial resources most effectively in a global economy…… oops tried that and we ended up paying billions of taxpayers money for their incompetence.

     Maybe $1.50 extra for a group on the bottom rung of the ladder should be tried next…seems to be a lot cheaper
   • KJT 6.3

     6 October 2011 at 5:04 pm

     Why don’t we give away 60% of all our wealth to the finance and speculative industry. Then we will all be rich!
     But, wait. Already done that.
     • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 6.3.1

       7 October 2011 at 1:34 pm

       Funnily enough, that 60% figure you mention is about the tax rate you’d seek to impose on people!
       • Colonial Viper 6.3.1.1

         7 October 2011 at 1:42 pm

         I’m for the idea of going back to the 1960 US income tax rate of 91%, applied say to all income over $500K p.a.
   • big bruv 6.4

     6 October 2011 at 6:58 pm

     Kong you heartless bastard, how do you expect them to buy their drugs, booze and fags on $50 an hour?

     It would be far better to not force them to work, just quadruple the benefit and stop embarrassing them by asking them if they have looked for a job or not.

     Nobody should be forced to work, and everybody should have access to everything free.
     • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 6.4.1

       7 October 2011 at 11:43 am

       Yeah, because anything else would compromise their dignity.

       And if we dont give them all more benefits, it’ll be understandable that they will chuck a rock through your window and hit you over the head.
     • mik e 6.4.2

       7 October 2011 at 10:52 pm

       big bully That sounds like a Ponzi scheme bean brained bean counter and thats whats caused most of the financial strife in this country and the world right now.Just about every country we trade with is subsidizing large areas of their economies in one area or another if they didn’t our unemployment level would be probably Zero Big Bully. So looking after our unemployed only a small percentage are long term unemployed or on a Dpb is a good way to make sure our economy stays afloat[Jenny Shipley used my Quote the day after I blogged the talk back shows with that quote in 1999]Hey bean brain bean counter Argentina tried your idiotic recipe in 1997 1998. Roger Douglas ran the 1997 election campaign quoting word for word your diatribe bean brain saying look at Argentina its stopping all welfare unemployment payments and went from 6% the lowest in Latin America to 38% the highest in Latin America. they stopped that dumb arsed policy pronto and now are the fastest growing economy in Latin America outside Brazil.Roger Quickly has never mentioned the Argentine experiment again but still has his die hard misogynistic cult worshipers like yourself commonly Known as Redneck bullies.
       • mik e 6.4.2.1

         7 October 2011 at 11:06 pm

         big bully That sounds like a Ponzi scheme bean brained bean counter and thats whats caused most of the financial strife in this country and the world right now.Just about every country we trade with is subsidizing large areas of their economies in one area or another if they didn’t our unemployment level would be probably Zero Big Bully. So looking after our unemployed only a small percentage are long term unemployed or on a Dpb is a good way to make sure our economy stays afloat[Jenny Shipley used my Quote the day after I blogged the talk back shows with that quote]Hey bean brain bean counter Argentina tried your idiotic recipe in 1997 1998. Roger Douglas ran the 1997 election campaign quoting word for word your diatribe bean brain saying look at Argentina its stopping all welfare unemployment payments and went from 6%unemployment the lowest in Latin America to 38%unemployment
         the highest in Latin America. they stopped that dumb arsed policy pronto and now are the fastest growing economy in Latin America outside Brazil.Roger Quickly has never mentioned the Argentine experiment again but still has his die hard misogynistic cult worshipers like yourself commonly Known as Redneck bullies.
7. Cricklewood 7

   6 October 2011 at 5:01 pm

   The real question you need to ask is what they are being charged out at…. I bet it’s something like $45 per hour plus…. If you increase the minimum all you will do is push up the charge out rate which will come from tax money seen as its parliament in all… Be best to figure out a way to peg wages to the charge out rate….
   • Draco T Bastard 7.1

     6 October 2011 at 5:53 pm

     That’s easy – just do the whole lot in house. That way you can dodge the dead weight loss of profit.
     • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 7.1.1

       7 October 2011 at 11:48 am

       Yeah, bring it all in-house and have to deal with ACC contributions, Kiwisaver contributions, holiday calculations, PAYE payments, OSH requirements, hiring, firing, sick leave cover, annual leave cover, union reps.

       And hire a few more people to do all the above for you.

       Much better idea, eh?
       • felix 7.1.1.1

         8 October 2011 at 12:47 am

         Yes it is, apart from your stupid idea about hiring “a few more people” to pay them.

         Do you really think parliament doesn’t already have the systems and infrastructure in place to manage the routine employment of people?

         Sharpen up Misanthrope.
         • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 7.1.1.1.1

           10 October 2011 at 3:47 pm

           Who was takling about parliment as an employer? This discussion is talking about small business.

           Are you always this confused?
8. thejackal 8

   6 October 2011 at 5:02 pm

   Interesting that the low waged make up a large proportion of the poor in New Zealand, it’s not just those on welfare anymore. Sad to see the cleaner get attacked so viciously with baseless arguments from the RWNJ’s. Outrageous that this is happening at the same time it’s announced MP’s will get extra perks.

   So much for closing the gaps and increasing the quality of life for all. Thanks to National, New Zealand is slipping further into the gutter. It’s not about sides, we’re all in the same boat. The sooner the right wing wake up to this fact the better.
   • KJT 8.1

     6 October 2011 at 5:08 pm

     Many workers are subsidising employers who do not pay the full cost of supplying that work.

     Doesn’t say much for the quality of our managers and employers.

     Cannot make a business work without a subsidy from their own employees.

     Matches the many other so called business people who cannot build a business and want to grab ours.
     • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 8.1.1

       7 October 2011 at 11:51 am

       What do you expect from a taxation system that taxes the workers to fund WFF?!?!?!?

       (After slushing the money thorugh more beuracrats in IRD, that is. Quite why lefties think taxing workers more, passing it to IRD, paying IRD to do stuff with it and count it and compute it, and then pay (some of) it out again is better than just not taking it in first place is a facinating insite into the lefty mindset)
   • Draco T Bastard 8.2

     6 October 2011 at 5:59 pm

     Good News & Bad

     The bad news? Wages grew by just 1.9%, the smallest amount in a decade, and far less than the 5% annual inflation in the comparable quarter. So, we’re all going backwards. So much for National’s “brighter future”…

     Yeah, politicians and CEOs get massive pay increases – everyone else goes backwards.
     • Ianupnorth 8.2.1

       6 October 2011 at 9:07 pm

       Building a Brighter Future*

       * For the top 10%, funded by the other 90% 
       • mik e 8.2.1.1

         7 October 2011 at 10:57 pm

         Hey ian up north we will run out of money and they won’t be able to get any more out of us at this rate
9. Cricklewood 9

   6 October 2011 at 5:04 pm

   What you really need to ask is what they are charged out at, i bet it’s $45 an hour plus…. if we just increase the minimum the charge rate will increase. The best solution would be to find a way to peg wages to charge out rates or something….
   • Draco T Bastard 9.1

     6 October 2011 at 5:59 pm

     You really didn’t have to write it twice.
   • Lanthanide 9.2

     6 October 2011 at 8:50 pm

     I seriously doubt they’d be charged out at much more than $20-25/hr.

     You can only charge the price that the market will pay. In this case there are many companies willing to supply cleaning services, thus driving the prices down.
   • Colonial Viper 9.3

     6 October 2011 at 8:54 pm

     The best solution would be to find a way to peg wages to charge out rates or something….

     No, the best solution would be to help the workers form their own worker owned co-operative, so that they could do the work, AND receive the full financial benefits of that work as BUSINESS OWNERS, while telling their current CAPITALIST OWNERS to fuck off.

     This is the future my man, economic democratic socialism
     • big bruv 9.3.1

       6 October 2011 at 10:25 pm

       Yeah. like that worked really well in the past aye.

       What a moron.
       • Draco T Bastard 9.3.1.1

         6 October 2011 at 11:17 pm

         It hasn’t been tried as the capitalists have always been the ones making the rules and they tend to make the rules to benefit themselves.
       • freedom 9.3.1.2

         7 October 2011 at 8:25 am

         actually BB there are numerous operations throughout the world that function in exactly this manner, From bakeries to engineering firms to software developers to hospitality providers and guess what, the staff are well paid in their wages AND they get a share of the profits. Why do you not hear more about them? probably because the staff are well paid and receive a share of the profits.
10. Herodotus 10

    6 October 2011 at 6:22 pm

    Spotless seems a great coy to own.
    When tendering for govt contracts should not as part of the process to be included the varying wage scales for staff.
    15+ years cleaning getting only marginally above min wage does not display much goodwill towards the employee. Especially given the confidential info being the PM’s clearer must involve.
    http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/02/19/spotless-profit-up-40-8-cleaners-offered-min-wage-plus-5-cents-not-fair/
    http://www.cleanstart.org.au/news/spotless-posts-massive-profits-but-at-what-cost
    http://www.spotless.com/Investors-and-Media/assets/Appendix4DHalfYear2010-78afb213-e683-4344-a0bd-72cc85344ed0-0.pdf
    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      6 October 2011 at 7:19 pm

      The workers should walk and take the contracts for themselves using their own business entity, Fuck Spotless.
      • Pete 10.1.1

        6 October 2011 at 10:24 pm

        Mindless! Govt departments go to larger organisations so they have continuity of supply. So that when people leave, get sick etc the job still gets done. Take the contracts! Can you see a responsible government walking away from a contract, or worse inducing someone else to break a lawful contract.
        Can you imagine a department dealing with a large number of cleaners on different rates and hours with no one responsible for the whole deal?
        • framu 10.1.1.1

          7 October 2011 at 7:58 am

          “dealing with a large number of cleaners on different rates and hours with no one responsible for the whole deal?”

          no ones suggesting that – when CV uses the term “their own business entity” what do you think that means?

          i’ll give you a hint – it works for fontera
          • Pete 10.1.1.1.1

            7 October 2011 at 8:29 am

            You can’t be expected to be taken seriously when you advance drivel like this!
            • framu 10.1.1.1.1.1

              7 October 2011 at 9:08 am

              its not drivel – im pointing out that youve made a mistake.

              the concept is that the cleaners form their own co-operative or collective and operate the service under contract themselves instead of being contractors to a parent company.

              they would be the workers and the shareholders.

              is this a business model you dont understand?

              I will ask you again – what do you think the words “business entity” mean?

              does it mean a business or a random group of individuals?

              for some reason you seem to think that they would be under individual contracts. – well thats what i took your comment to mean
              • Jum …

                7 October 2011 at 1:13 pm

                Framu,

                excellent idea – take it one step further; take the ever-lengthening lines of unemployed caused by this government, form them into company structures and they can start a company.

                Within the unemployed you will have floor staff, managers, secretaries, accountants, supervisors all sorts of expertise from all sorts of people that have been flung on the scrap heap, because of age or a myriad of other agenda reasons by the rightwing.

                These people will be rightfully angry about what has happened to them. They will look to make their ‘company’ succeed and spit in the eyes of this government that forced them out of the Kiwi lifestyle they have a right to be a part of.

                POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
11. Lucy Lu 11

    6 October 2011 at 6:26 pm

    You reap what you sow. Maybe if she got an education instead of fucking from an early age she might be in a better place? With WFF she is well off wrt to the job she performs.
    • Draco T Bastard 11.1

      6 October 2011 at 6:29 pm

      Another RWNJ blaming the victim.
      • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 11.1.1

        7 October 2011 at 11:53 am

        What is it about ’cause and effect’ that you find so distastefull?
    • felix 11.2

      6 October 2011 at 6:40 pm

      Ladies and Gentlemen, I present the true face of the National Party.
    • Colonial Viper 11.3

      6 October 2011 at 7:18 pm

      Hey shit head Lu, if you really believed in “you reap what you sow” you wouldn’t be such a preachy asshole.

      Which means that you don’t really believe, therefore you’re actually a hypocritical prick of a RWNJ.
    • prism 11.4

      6 October 2011 at 7:35 pm

      Why shouldn’t someone doing cleaning work get a living wage, and have increases for each year they work, recognising their commitment and seniority? When I cleaned I was in charge of the keys for the building. How could I be in a trusted position like this and yet be the disregarded lowest of the low as a cleaner?

      And if there was anything missed, it was noticed and commented on. Cleanliness is important for health, prevention of disease spread and tidyness and a pleasant, clean environment is desired by most people. Yet the cleaners aren’t respected. They may be very bright, they may be educated philosophers, engineers or sociologists or resting actors. They may have dyslexia and never attained educational qualifications, they may have been kept home to look after small sister and brother while mother worked, they may have had difficulties in their lives which prevented proper application and concentration to their school work.

      All these things are irrelevant in that manual workers deserve to be paid a decent wage for what they do. Because we like the results of what they do and need them for an attractive, safe, well-functioning society.
      • big bruv 11.4.1

        6 October 2011 at 10:20 pm

        $13.50 an hour for a cleaner seems like a decent wage to me.

        It’s not exactly skilled work is it.
        • freedom 11.4.1.1

          7 October 2011 at 8:39 am

          BB fuck you and the horse you suck off each day

          Your ignorance is as underwhelming as your arrogance is extraordinary. I have worked as a cleaner a number of times over the years as it was suitable to my employment needs due to other commitments and i am not someone without skills. I have seen many others come and go. Especially loud mouthed ‘higher’ gimps like yourself who despite their education and the status they hold (in their own mind) they can not follow instructions, think they know a better way or simply do not have the inner fortitude to clean some of the things that one must clean from time to time and generally never in the short time available to complete the job to the standard demanded.
        • mik e 11.4.1.2

          7 October 2011 at 10:11 pm

          bigbruv having a superiority complex and being an arsehole like you proves you don’t have alot of brains.
    • Bored 11.5

      6 October 2011 at 7:45 pm

      Hello Cactus type.
      • Colonial Viper 11.5.1

        6 October 2011 at 8:56 pm

        Is a ‘cactus-type’ a genotype, a phenotype, or a stereotype?
        • Bored 11.5.1.1

          7 October 2011 at 9:21 am

          Cactus as in Kate…somebody notoriously nasty toward those less fortunate, the kick them whilst they are down BUT scream blue murder if it happens to them “type”. Somebody who has had an empathy bypass, and has had their ego inflated bigger than a stock market bubble.
      • prism 11.5.2

        7 October 2011 at 9:30 am

        Bored – Who Cactus type?
    • Ianupnorth 11.6

      6 October 2011 at 9:10 pm

      Like being born an Islander in a fundamentally racist and sexist society? I know lots of people with masters degrees and no jobs; I guess they must have fucked about too.
       
      • Colonial Viper 11.6.1

        6 October 2011 at 9:13 pm

        Plenty of Ivy League law grads in the US are flipping burgers; the bottom line is that we (or more correctly, capitalist sociopaths) have created a society where we don’t need most workers any more as we get China to supply most of the labour in the items around us.
        • Draco T Bastard 11.6.1.1

          6 October 2011 at 11:29 pm

          Increased productivity results in the need for less workers.

          Example:
          Society of 1000
          Takes 1000 to supply all the resources for that society to live
          An across the board increase in productivity of 10% results in only needing 900 people
          You now have 10% structural unemployment

          The only way to get rid of that unemployment is to get those people doing something that wasn’t done before. Unfortunately, our socio-economic system doesn’t do that. Instead it forces those to work for less and that the extra wealth now available goes to the capitalists.
          • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 11.6.1.1.1

            7 October 2011 at 1:38 pm

            Your arguemnst appears to imply productivity is a bad thing!?!

            Maybe those 100 could see a way/need of improving the status quo (eg develop an new medicine), for the bettermenst of all. Your hypothetiocal society has improved.

            However, your argumenst appears to be Pol-Potian, in that their is nobilty through labour: lets spurn technology and become ineffcient and have ‘full employment’.

            Surrender your diggers and pick up a spade!
      • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 11.6.2

        7 October 2011 at 11:56 am

        There is not much professional/employment demand for Masters degrees in basket weaving, feminist geography, or lentil-munching
    • Jum 11.7

      7 October 2011 at 1:15 pm

      lucy lu

      fuck off back to kiwiblog, the rightful place of National and its supporters, the sewerblog of greedy selfish fuckwits and take that misinformed peoplehater, misanthro’pological reject, piggybacking on your post, back with you.
12. Jimmy 12

    6 October 2011 at 6:59 pm

    Yeah well Whaleoil reckons shes on about $70,000 by the time she collects all the benefits awarded to her for her 8 children etc, which he says is about the level to call her a rich prick.
    What do you guys think of that?
    • big bruv 12.1

      6 October 2011 at 8:08 pm

      “What do you guys think of that?”

      Two things Jimmy.

      One is that this woman should STFU given she effectively pays no tax, she takes money from hard working responsible Kiwis every week yet has the temerity to moan about what she gets paid.

      The second thing is this (and a point that nearly all here will ignore) Ms Masoe will still be employed in the PM’s office after the election, Key will not sack her for speaking out, he will not attack her character or her family. Now, imagine if Ms Masoe had spoken out when the previous PM was in office…

      She would have been sacked on the spot, her name would have been slandered under parliamentary privilege and she would have had her life turned upside down for daring to speak out against the previous PM.
      • thejackal 12.1.1

        6 October 2011 at 8:38 pm

        Cameron Slater’s speculations built on nothing but his own active imagination holds very little relevance to the debate. Just in case you’re not aware, she happens to pay taxes big bruv. Letting people know about her plight is not moaning… it is merely highlighting something a lot of low waged workers have to endure.

        You speculate on what John Key is going to do to try and make out he’s a nice guy… what a load of rubbish! Did you happen to see his reaction yesterday when that guy tried to jump off the balcony? That’s not the reaction of a nice guy, that’s the reaction of a narcissist!

        You might have forgotten the reaction of Paula Bennett when a couple of welfare dependent people spoke out… she ignored privacy laws and tried to fuck them over. That’s what all your beloved National MP’s are like… vindictive! Key will not attack her character openly himself because he has a bunch anonymous trolls and lapdogs like Farrar and Slater to do that.

        Usual RWNJ argument… fixated on Helen Clark and totally removed from reality.
        • big bruv 12.1.1.1

          6 October 2011 at 8:57 pm

          Ah jackal, how delicious it is when you can toss somebodies poor argument back in their face.

          You claim that Labour were pure, does the name Erin Leigh not mean anything to you?

          Now, as for the two bludgers who were dumb enough to have a crack at Bennett well one of them at least got the abuse she deserves. One of them is taking in nearly 70k a year in benefits and has rorted the system for years. That particular parasite got all that she deserved, all that needs to happen now is for her benefit to be cut and she can be forced to look for work.

          I did see Key’s reaction yesterday, he rightly pointed out that it was Labour’s fault.

          As for spotting a narcissist, well I am good at that, I watched one lead the country as PM for nine long years.

          Sorry to shake you up Jackal but those of us on the right are the ones who deal with reality everyday, not for us the sheltered life of an underperforming teacher (hiding behind the union), not for us the cushy job being a scum union organiser, not for us the pointless life as a public servant paper shuffler.
          We are out there in the real world earning money so the low life and bludgers who vote for Labour can stay on benefits.

          You should really show us a lot more respect, without us all of you have nothing.
          • vto 12.1.1.1.1

            6 October 2011 at 9:46 pm

            “You should really show us a lot more respect, without us all of you have nothing.”

            Really? Lets test that out and all you lot fuck off.

            I would give my eye and teeth to see that.
            • big bruv 12.1.1.1.1.1

              6 October 2011 at 9:59 pm

              Would you?

              What a stupid comment, nor productive people means no jobs at all, no industry, no capital and no taxes that you can use to bribe the electorate.

              Not the brightest bulb in the box are you vto.
              • vto …

                6 October 2011 at 10:15 pm

                You live in a total fantasy world. In evidence note your clear delusion in thinking that your own particular comment “You should really show us a lot more respect, without us all of you have nothing.” was serious and deserving of credibility.

                But yes you are right, if you all you bozzos disappeared we would all just shrivel up and die because we just would not be able to operate. ha ha ha ha. ffs.
                • prism …

                  7 October 2011 at 9:37 am

                  bb –

                  You should really show us a lot more respect, without us all of you have nothing.

                  That’s what you like though. It suits you to have what you have and be able to look down on the lesser beings. That’s why you don’t want to support any policies aimed at giving poorer people better lives.
              • Colonial Viper …

                6 October 2011 at 11:35 pm

                One is that this woman should STFU given she effectively pays no tax, she takes money from hard working responsible Kiwis every week yet has the temerity to moan about what she gets paid.

                That’s right, landless serfs should STFU and only speak when they are spoken to by their lords and masters.
              • freedom …

                7 October 2011 at 8:50 am

                BB In honour of your TV fed mantras of hate and deception I propose :

                Survivor – New Zealand

                Let’s take the few hundred thousand well paid bigoted egotistical hate filled examples of human perfection you seem to champion and the same number of regular ‘low wage’ Kiwis , spilt them into two camps and dump each on one of the main islands, leave them for ten years and see which group survives on their own, i sure as hell know which camp i would want to be in

                you can even choose which island you want, North or South
      • Draco T Bastard 12.1.2

        6 October 2011 at 8:53 pm

        She would have been sacked on the spot, her name would have been slandered under parliamentary privilege and she would have had her life turned upside down for daring to speak out against the previous PM.

        BS BB and you should get a ban for such defamation.

        If you want to see actions like you describe you need to look to Paula Bennett who disclosed private information about people who spoke out against her.
        • big bruv 12.1.2.1

          6 October 2011 at 9:00 pm

          Erin Leigh.
    • Ianupnorth 12.2

      6 October 2011 at 9:15 pm

      Isn’t old Blubber Boy a sickness beneficiary? Wonder how much he gets; at least Ms Masoe has a job!
      • freedom 12.2.1

        7 October 2011 at 8:51 am

        don’t tell Bruv, he’ll have to take down his signed poster
      • Rosemary 12.2.2

        8 October 2011 at 12:45 am

        Yeah, and someone might want to check out the advice Cactus Kate gave him about how to hide his income and assets. She would’ve approached it thinking like a tax lawyer but it’s a whole different game when you’re on a benefit.
    • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 12.3

      7 October 2011 at 11:58 am

      Given that Labour thought a few years ago that $60,000 a year income was enough to be a “rich-prick” and pay the top tax rate, I’d say that a cleaner pullingin the equivilent of $70,000 a year was doing quite-nicely-thank-you-very-much.
13. randal 13

    6 October 2011 at 8:23 pm

    well key is about to give fay and his mates a couple of billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) and then they will both piss off. I know whose side I am on and that is the side of the people who do the work and not the leeches who suck off and syphon off the wealth that we have already created but which they covet.
14. mik e 14

    6 October 2011 at 8:28 pm

    bb you talk a lot of shit previous govt increased minimum wage ,working for families,free child care for under five year olds. Grew the economy by 28%,a 50 cent pay rise is a lot less than a $ 3.00 pay rise. National under Blinglish still hasn’t managed to grow the economy by 1% in 5 years as finance minister. Got any excuses there Big Bully.
15. big bruv 15

    6 October 2011 at 8:36 pm

    mik e

    “Grew the public service by 28%,”

    There ya go, I fixed it for ya.

    You really must stop telling lies Mik e
    • Colonial Viper 15.1

      6 October 2011 at 8:47 pm

      Only a moron like Key or English would accelerate job losses in the middle of a recession.

      Oh yeah, they have to because they gave tax cuts to the rich.
      • big bruv 15.1.1

        6 October 2011 at 9:16 pm

        Nah, not the ‘rich’ Viper, as you well know most people got a tax cut.

        You just prefer to parrot the Labour party lie.
        • Draco T Bastard 15.1.1.1

          6 October 2011 at 9:23 pm

          Not a lie BB as the maths show. The rich got the cream and everyone else got shafted.
        • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.2

          6 October 2011 at 9:23 pm

          Rich people got useful tax cuts. You know, an extra $200 per week in hand, that kind of thing.

          Median workers on $31K pa got soaked with Key’s liar GST increase and hidden inflation items.
          • big bruv 15.1.1.2.1

            6 October 2011 at 9:38 pm

            You mean they got to keep more of their own money, and most got less than $200 a week, however it was welcome.
            You also ignore the fact that these people pay the majority of the tax, they only got to keep what is theirs anyway.

            As for those on 31k. Tough luck, they have done fine out of the Labour government during the last nine years, WFF more than makes up for not getting much this time.
            • Draco T Bastard 15.1.1.2.1.1

              6 October 2011 at 11:34 pm

              You mean they got to keep more of their own money…

              Nope as the cost of living went up despite demand going down and profits went up as well despite there being a recession on. Just as the people on the left predicted. Wealthy did real well, everyone else got shafted courtesy of NActs psychopathic policies.
            • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 15.1.1.2.1.2

              7 October 2011 at 12:00 pm

              Further, recall than families earning $50,000 a year pay not net tax anyway, because of WFF topups and the like
    • Lanthanide 15.2

      6 October 2011 at 8:52 pm

      “Grew the public service by 28%,”

      After national cut it so deeply during the 90’s that it was only just managing to hold together and reaching crisis points in some hospitals.
      • big bruv 15.2.1

        6 October 2011 at 9:25 pm

        “After national cut it so deeply during the 90′s that it was only just managing to hold together and reaching crisis points in some hospitals.”

        Utter rubbish, they filled most of those positions with paper shufflers who were almost always party hacks. 99% of the positions were not needed (as proven by the way that Ryall has done a great job getting rid of them)

        Public health is in better shape after three years of this government than it has ever been under Labour, you guys spent more and more money each year keeping your flunkies in jobs and we had a situation where less operations were being carried out.

        Let’s hope that the Nat’s keep going with the cull of the public service, I am sure there are another few thousand that we can get rid of.
        • RobC 15.2.1.1

          6 October 2011 at 9:35 pm

          yeah BB thats why after a triple bypass op where im supposed to have a follow-up appt with a cardiologist after 4-6 weeks; it’s been 10 weeks and I’m still waiting. Yeah, the public health system is all good
          • big bruv 15.2.1.1.1

            6 October 2011 at 9:48 pm

            Well RobC, at least you got the bypass, under Labour you would still be waiting.
            Imagine how bad that would be?

            BTW, why did you not go private?, why do you leave it up to others to pay for your health care?
            • Maynard J 15.2.1.1.1.1

              6 October 2011 at 11:20 pm

              Rob C has probably been paying taxes all his life, part of which go towards healthcare. So the money the government ‘stole’ from him went towards his healthcare – that’s why people who have been educated, use roads, eat food, work, live, etc etc don’t call it stealing – they don’t aspire to be a bludger like you clearly do.

              In this case, it’s a form of health insurance – everyone wins, and as a bonus, is really annoys people like you! win-win
            • clandestino 15.2.1.1.1.2

              6 October 2011 at 11:35 pm

              Fuck you’re a knob, but you enjoy this don’t you?

              If you get debilitated with some condition, unable to work and require an operation, I hope you have the ability to go private so the rest of us don’t have to fork out for you. And if the operation goes bad and they have to go cap in hand to the public hospitals asking to use their facilities (as they do), tough shit.
              • Colonial Viper …

                6 October 2011 at 11:41 pm

                The private hospital system relies completely on the public hospitals to save their sorry asses.

                When some private procedure goes wrong and infection or gangrene sets in or some other medical emergency occurs on the operating table, guess what fucking private hospitals like Southern Cross do?

                Yep. They ship their FUBAR’d emergency cases straight to the nearest public hospital to salvage at tax payer expense.

                What a joke, just like BB
            • Ianupnorth 15.2.1.1.1.3

              6 October 2011 at 11:39 pm

              BB you are such a dick; the ‘paper stuffers’ were created in a policy by a woman called Thatcher in the UK; they thought (incorrectly) that health services (not just hospitals) could be better managed by accountants. Now accountants like numbers and forms, so guess what, they introduced reporting for everything. And when you have a report someone has to read that and report on it, until it is in digestable chunks that an be understood by a minister.

              That Tory business model was copied by NZ, so there are plenty of analysts, business managers, portfolio managers, etc. You cannot blame Labour for a policy which came straight from the commercial world via right wing policy. 
              • Draco T Bastard …

                6 October 2011 at 11:54 pm

                Yep, it’s one of the supreme ironies. The RWNJs always say that they want to get rid of the bureaucrats and yet their policies always require far more than what we had before. They’ll still fire them of course and then blame Labour for the failing public services as proven by their whinging about hospital waiting lists from 1999 through 2008.
                • Jum …

                  7 October 2011 at 2:00 pm

                  Draco T Bastard,

                  And as Galbraith points out, private business has corporate management, a fancy name for bureaucracy, and worse still that private bureacracy has no public watch on it, just like the Auckland CCOs.
        • felix 15.2.1.2

          6 October 2011 at 10:29 pm

          “Utter rubbish, they filled most of those positions with paper shufflers who were almost always party hacks.”

          How many positions are you talking about? Round it off to the thousand if you like.
        • Vicky32 15.2.1.3

          7 October 2011 at 5:05 pm

          Utter rubbish, they filled most of those positions with paper shufflers who were almost always party hacks. 99% of the positions were not needed (as proven by the way that Ryall has done a great job getting rid of them)

          Bollices. As my son points out, for every “paper shuffler” got rid of, clinical staff are forced to do admin and clerical jobs. (Someone has to do them!) Luckily, Ryall likes cardiology, so he hasn’t mucked with 6 South too much, but apparently, he has cut a swathe through other services. I am at a loss to understand why you think “paper shufflers” are not needed! Someone has to keep track of admissions, lab reports, discharge letters and the like. Not to mention the HCAs Ryall has got rid of – granted they’re non-clinical, but that doesn’t mean they’re not necessary!

          Public health is in better shape after three years of this government than it has ever been under Labour, you guys spent more and more money each year keeping your flunkies in jobs and we had a situation where less (sic – should be fewer)  operations were being carried out.

          Not true. My son works as a staff nurse on the Cardiology ward in Welly Hospital, and he’s constantly being asked to cover extra shifts for sick colleagues etc – he was even asked (a month in advance!) to sacrifice the end of his annual leave! (He declined.)
          • Ianupnorth 15.2.1.3.1

            7 October 2011 at 5:50 pm

            My wife works in a SCBU; she had to miss the only RWC game we had tickets for because they were short staffed.
             
            What Vicky32 also hasn’t pointed out, that whilst acute services and elective services have had some money given to them, this has been removed from the money allocated for preventative interventions, so all the effective work that saves money in the long term and improves quality of life have been well and truly redistributed by dumb Mr. Ryall.
    • mik e 15.3

      7 October 2011 at 10:15 pm

      Swapped $685 million dollars per years worth of consultants fees under shipley english negative growth economy. to in house consultants at 1/3 the cost bean brain.
16. Ianupnorth 16

    6 October 2011 at 9:12 pm

    No more comments from BB, he’s off out cottaging
17. randal 17

    6 October 2011 at 9:43 pm

    bb is just a typical smal businessman who can only profit by exploiting his his workers. he’s probably psychologically disposed to exploiting people anyway and owning his petty little enterprise just gives him a hintof social justification. the national party is where you find the versions of his type.
18. Misanthropic Curmudgeon 18

    7 October 2011 at 12:11 pm

    Perhaps the most dissapointing aspoect of this guest post is the presumption of (adversearial) sides in a zero-sum game by the poster, and commentators like Draco, Viper, Jackal et al.
    • Puddleglum 18.1

      7 October 2011 at 1:45 pm

      Hi Misanthropic Curmudgeon, 

      Here’s where the ‘zero-sum’ aspect applies. I agree that it isn’t about absolute levels of income (which, in theory, can keep ‘growing’ so long as overall economic activity keeps growing).

      In any economy there is a level at which it is possible to participate in a way that maintains some minimal level of control over one’s life. In ‘advanced’ economies, that level is relatively high (e.g., compared with what is needed to control one’s life in hunter-gatherer cultures). Below that level people have little control over the means to improve their relative position (i.e., to improve their lot).

      Now, control – unlike something like ‘income’ – is inherently relative and ‘zero-sum’ in a competitive, individualistic, non-cooperative economy. As economists often remark, there’s a competition for scarce resources. In advanced economies, the scarcest resources are those that give you that control over your life.

      There’s a zero-sum competition for them at any one point in time because the resources that are required to achieve that control keep escalating. Societies that become more and more unequal are simply societies where the rate of that escalation exceeds the rate at which the lowest incomes are advancing.

      Hence, zero-sum.

      Edit: Put it this way, it’s possible to have more absolute income but increasingly less control over one’s life.
19. randal 19

    7 October 2011 at 5:11 pm

    the thing about money is that you cant actually eat it.
    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 19.1

      7 October 2011 at 5:29 pm

      Not true, randal. Satay sauce helps it go down.
20. Thomas 20

    7 October 2011 at 5:53 pm

    This article is, at best, stretching the truth.

    There have been a number of changes made to the article since it went up. Firstly, it no longer claims that Masoe cleans the PM’s office (although the title reflects the original story). And it initially said that $13.50 per hour was the minimum wage (actually $13.00/hour). So it evidently wasn’t and isn’t a well-researched article. And the fishy smell remains: She claims to spend more than twice as much on electricity as food…

    What isn’t said is as interesting as what is: Kiwiblog and Whaleoil have pointed out that welfare is a glaring omission, as it probably comprises the majority of her income of over $70,000 per year. And we aren’t told if there are any other breadwinners (or welfare recipients) in the house. That should really have been mentioned.

    I sympathise with Ms. Masoe’s plight, but that shouldn’t cause us to abandon reason and pass a law that affects over a quarter of a million people because of her story. Frankly, I view this campaign as a dishonest attempt to use an emotionally charged story to steer the minimum wage debate away from facts and reason.

    The fact is that Ms. Masoe’s story is the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of people on the minimum wage are youth. Only 1.1% of workers over 25 earn minimum wage. Trying to help people like Ms. Masoe by changing the minimum wage for everyone is like using a chainsaw where a scalpel is needed. It would help if Labour hadn’t abolished the adult minimum wage and applied the youth minimum wage to everyone (this would get is to a blunt meat cleaver, but it’s better than a chainsaw).

    Ms. Masoe might benefit from increasing the minimum wage, but her children and granchildren won’t, because it will make it even harder for them to get their foot in the door with a first job.
    • Blighty 20.1

      7 October 2011 at 6:16 pm

      sigh.

      “The fact is that Ms. Masoe’s story is the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of people on the minimum wage are youth. Only 1.1% of workers over 25 earn minimum wage.”

      And Mascoe isn’t one of them. She’s one of the many ‘near-minimum wage’ workers

      And she and quarter of a million other workers would directly benefit from lifting the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

      “She claims to spend more than twice as much on electricity as food”

      Are you calling this woman a liar? You try keeping a family warm in some ex-state house with a slum landlord.
      • Thomas 20.1.1

        7 October 2011 at 6:30 pm

        She’s one of the many ‘near-minimum wage’ workers

        Still only 3.5% of workers 25 or older earn $13.50 or less per hour. But 26.7% of 18-19 yos earn $13.50 or less. The fact is that most minimum or near-minimum wage workers are youth, so her story is not representative.

        And she and quarter of a million other workers would directly benefit from lifting the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

        And the Department of Labour estimates that it will result in 6000 less jobs. And being unemployed is much worse than working for $14.99 per hour.

        We need to focus on creating high-productivity high-wage jobs, rather than legislating that low-productivity jobs should be high-wage jobs anyway. Our country is falling behind and becoming poorer overall; redistributing the pie doesn’t make it bigger.

        Are you calling this woman a liar?

        No. I’m implying that the journalist who wrote the article is unreliable.
        • Colonial Viper 20.1.1.1

          7 October 2011 at 10:14 pm

          Thomas is being an asshole.

          He does not get the fact that even ONE worker being fucked over and disadvantaged where their labour is UNDERVALUED is simply not good enough.

          Especially when some Tory fucker is enjoying their extra $1000/wk self given tax break.

          No. I’m implying that the journalist who wrote the article is unreliable.

          Unreliable at following Crosby Textor memos.
        • Puddleglum 20.1.1.2

          7 October 2011 at 10:57 pm

          “We need to focus on creating high-productivity high-wage jobs, rather than legislating that low-productivity jobs should be high-wage jobs anyway.”

          Hi Thomas,

          Presumably you believe the above because you think that such lowly paid jobs are not desirable in New Zealand? (Otherwise, why say we should do something to eliminate them?)

          If that’s what you believe then, in the interim, why is it acceptable to have such lowly paid jobs? Further, given that it is hard to see how the need for such jobs is ever going to disappear (when won’t we need ‘unskilled’ labour?) why is it acceptable to have such lowly paid jobs ad infinitum?
    • Jumbuck 20.2

      8 October 2011 at 11:55 am

      “Ms. Masoe might benefit from increasing the minimum wage, but her children and grandchildren won’t, because it will make it even harder for them to get their foot in the door with a first job.”

      So now you’re telling us that the children of poor people cannot be educated, cannot buy into John Key’s bright future of right choices… and if they could, their education will still be insufficient to get a job.

      GET THIS STRAIGHT: Mindless righty slogan aren’t good enough anymore. They don’t fool anyone, not even me, a poor unemployed person. So goodness knows what kind of mental gymnastics it takes for one of the educated rich to eagerly believe it. It would lead me to believe the slogans are just plain malicious lies.
21. randal 21

    7 October 2011 at 6:27 pm

    hey jimmy. is whale oil still scamming the insurance company for $100,000 a year?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS