Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 118328	2011-05-30 20:55:00	Economics Rant	pctek (84)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1205683	2011-05-30 20:55:00	In the paper: Mr Key said the welfare system should send a consistent message that "if you can work, you must work". "The proportion of the working-age population on benefits has increased from 2 per cent to 13 per cent since 1970. Well, er, maybe because back then, NZ had a lot of factories making things? And things like a Post Office on every street corner? Now we have - what? And: It's always a good tactic to imply your opponents are dimwits who don't understand economics, as John Key did last week after Labour pledged to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. That's after claiming 6000 people would be put out of their jobs as a result of such a rise, and that the Department of Labour had said so - which wasn't quite true. The department had actually predicted a potential loss in job growth of between 4280 to 5710 jobs. This was based on a theoretical model, which may or may not be more accurate than a crystal ball. "It is not straightforward to estimate the impact on unemployment," it said cautiously. Lets take F&P as an example. They didn't actually pay their staff minimum wage, they paid rather well actually. But let's pretend. Say 200 workers getting an extra $2 an hour = $16000 a week = $832000 a year. Mr Bongard on the other hand got 1.3 million, not including bonuses. Plus the other senior management at - what? Rather a lot. Plus the bonuses. Paying senior people less perhaps wouldn't save the company more? Yes, someone will now mention small businesses. True, with mine I sure couldn't have afforded to pay someone else, but then I couldn't at $13 either. Your business needs to grow first. All this crap the MPs put about - none of it addresses the main problem - NZ needs to produce more stuff the rest of the world wants to buy. We've done a good job so far of reducing it all, and increasing imports. Basic household budgeting tells you it will never change unless we earn more - the country that is, not us individuals. Not one of the parties have ever come with a sensible plan to do this - they all just stuff around with the existing money - take it from here - add it to there. In their various favourite ways. That's like me playing with my income, I'll spend more on food for 3 years and less on power. Oh now I'll pend more on phone and less on entertainment. Oh, I'm a bit short - I'll sell the dining suite. Pointless.	pctek (84)
1205684	2011-05-30 22:37:00	100% And back then mums stayed at home looking after the kids, now they have to work to make ends meet, there is twice the amount of people in the work force or looking for work	Gobe1 (6290)
1205685	2011-05-30 23:33:00	In the paper: Mr Key said the welfare system should send a consistent message that "if you can work, you must work". "The proportion of the working-age population on benefits has increased from 2 per cent to 13 per cent since 1970. Well, er, maybe because back then, NZ had a lot of factories making things? And things like a Post Office on every street corner? Now we have - what? And: It's always a good tactic to imply your opponents are dimwits who don't understand economics, as John Key did last week after Labour pledged to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. That's after claiming 6000 people would be put out of their jobs as a result of such a rise, and that the Department of Labour had said so - which wasn't quite true. The department had actually predicted a potential loss in job growth of between 4280 to 5710 jobs. This was based on a theoretical model, which may or may not be more accurate than a crystal ball. "It is not straightforward to estimate the impact on unemployment," it said cautiously. Lets take F&P as an example. They didn't actually pay their staff minimum wage, they paid rather well actually. But let's pretend. Say 200 workers getting an extra $2 an hour = $16000 a week = $832000 a year. Mr Bongard on the other hand got 1.3 million, not including bonuses. Plus the other senior management at - what? Rather a lot. Plus the bonuses. Paying senior people less perhaps wouldn't save the company more? Yes, someone will now mention small businesses. True, with mine I sure couldn't have afforded to pay someone else, but then I couldn't at $13 either. Your business needs to grow first. All this crap the MPs put about - none of it addresses the main problem - NZ needs to produce more stuff the rest of the world wants to buy. We've done a good job so far of reducing it all, and increasing imports. Basic household budgeting tells you it will never change unless we earn more - the country that is, not us individuals. Not one of the parties have ever come with a sensible plan to do this - they all just stuff around with the existing money - take it from here - add it to there. In their various favourite ways. That's like me playing with my income, I'll spend more on food for 3 years and less on power. Oh now I'll pend more on phone and less on entertainment. Oh, I'm a bit short - I'll sell the dining suite. Pointless. You have a clear head there PCtek.:thumbs:	mikebartnz (21)
1205686	2011-05-31 00:10:00	Couldn't agree more, how can you get people off benefits unless there are jobs for them to first	gary67 (56)
1205687	2011-05-31 00:50:00	Couldn't agree more, how can you get people off benefits unless there are jobs for them to first Send them to China to work on the sweatlines making the stuff we buy here!!! PJ	Poppa John (284)
1205688	2011-05-31 00:56:00	The budget before last they reckoned there would be 170,000 new jobs created. Last budget the same as it happens. Tui ad I reckon.	Snorkbox (15764)
1205689	2011-05-31 01:25:00	LOL, you are of course forgetting the increase in population since the 70's and the influx of foreigners taking up a lot of jobs....oh and please tell me why is it, the plebs always go on about management....They are there because they are skills and direct the company, something that plebs cant do. If we dont pay management for their training and skills, they will go elsewhere, company folds and the plebs have NO job period. We all know we cannot compete in factories with the likes of China, the world is a very small place now...not like the 70's.....We need skilled, trained workers that create.....ie: film, software, new products....what is the point in factories where are product is competing against the likes of India, China, Africa etc?...	SolMiester (139)
1205690	2011-05-31 01:32:00	That avoids the main point. If you don't want to pay out on welfare then you have to have jobs that people can do even if retraining is required.	Snorkbox (15764)
1205691	2011-05-31 01:36:00	LOL, you are of course forgetting the increase in population since the 70's and the influx of foreigners taking up a lot of jobs........They are there because they are skills and direct the company, something that plebs cant do. If we dont pay management for their training and skills, they will go elsewhere, company folds and the plebs have NO job period. No I'm not. Back then loads of Pacific Islanders were imported/imported themselves and staffed a lot of them. Now we have different immigrants - who mostly buy a shop of some sort because they have to. And management, hmm, yes. I have had 3 managers who didn't have the slightest idea of what they were doing. Seriously. One of them - his company went into receivership. It doesn't necessarily mean all managers are highly skilled and smart and all workers are thick plebs who should shut up be grateful to be employed. Anyway, regardless, unless we increase our sales to overseas of something useful, nothing will make any difference.	pctek (84)
1205692	2011-05-31 01:44:00	Employment is a world wide problem but people who already have jobs (economists, politicians and most voters) have no incentive to address it. Wouldn't it be great if John key were to address an international audience and urge economists to do something? Unfortunately John Key is no statesman. He is too weak to stand up to anyone. When his advisors tell him that slash-and-burn is what's required, he puts on a smile and tells us that slash-and-burn is what's required	BBCmicro (15761)
1 2 3 4 5 6