Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
13725 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6448

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1043890 14-May-2014 15:08
One person supports this post
Send private message

ajobbins:
geekiegeek: what is the definition of the 1% in NZ, considering the fact that we only have 3 billionaires.

I'd also love for someone to point out to me who exactly "John Keys rich mates" are. I'm guessing that the greens idea of who is rich is probably different from that of Labour and different again from that of National. 


Ummm.. the definition is the 1%. The top one percent of wealth holders.


or to put it another way, the top 1% of investors




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

A Tiger in Africa, probably escaped from the Zoo.

 

 


Awesome
4839 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1094

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1044866 14-May-2014 15:22
Send private message

KiwiNZ: 
You start a job, you may have to buy some clothes and a bus ticket, or parking permit and go to work 5 days a week. If you start a business you may have borrowed extensively against your home and other property etc etc and then to make that start up work your hours are not 9 to 5  with an hour for lunch but 7 to 11 with the luxury of maybe a 10am start over the pseudo weekend.

When financial and trading climates are hard the work of senior executives is considerably harder and the hours considerably longer, (something I have watched with my wife), if they keep a company trading etc through those times then they deserve the income they receive.


Sure, there is an element of this. But the policies the government put in place don't target the small business owners who might have large borrowings against personal assets. They usually target the big players, often foreign, who are only 'risking' shareholders money, not their own. And I can tell you from experience while many of then do work hard and long hours, so do a good chunk of their workers. 

The 9-5 Monday to Friday with an hour for lunch died a long time ago. I work for a global company, I often have conference calls with colleagues and/or clients in our offices around the globe at all hours of the day and night (as well as being in the office at least 8+ hours a day Mon-Fri), I have a BlackBerry that never stops making noise, and if I didn't respond to emails out of hours I would likely be deemed a 'poor performer' and 'not a team player'. It's become the norm and it's expected. I have worked weekends when projects have demanded it.




Twitter: ajobbins


 
 
 
 


Awesome
4839 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1094

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1044867 14-May-2014 15:24
Send private message

KiwiNZ: or to put it another way, the top 1% of investors


No, the top 1% of all wealth holders (Everyone). Everyone has some amount of wealth (even if that number is negative).




Twitter: ajobbins


2581 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1231

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1044870 14-May-2014 15:26
Send private message

ajobbins:
KiwiNZ: 
You start a job, you may have to buy some clothes and a bus ticket, or parking permit and go to work 5 days a week. If you start a business you may have borrowed extensively against your home and other property etc etc and then to make that start up work your hours are not 9 to 5  with an hour for lunch but 7 to 11 with the luxury of maybe a 10am start over the pseudo weekend.

When financial and trading climates are hard the work of senior executives is considerably harder and the hours considerably longer, (something I have watched with my wife), if they keep a company trading etc through those times then they deserve the income they receive.


Sure, there is an element of this. But the policies the government put in place don't target the small business owners who might have large borrowings against personal assets. They usually target the big players, often foreign, who are only 'risking' shareholders money, not their own. And I can tell you from experience while many of then do work hard and long hours, so do a good chunk of their workers. 

The 9-5 Monday to Friday with an hour for lunch died a long time ago. I work for a global company, I often have conference calls with colleagues and/or clients in our offices around the globe at all hours of the day and night (as well as being in the office at least 8+ hours a day Mon-Fri), I have a BlackBerry that never stops making noise, and if I didn't respond to emails out of hours I would likely be deemed a 'poor performer' and 'not a team player'. It's become the norm and it's expected. I have worked weekends when projects have demanded it.


What's a blackberry?

13725 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6448

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1044872 14-May-2014 15:27
Send private message

ajobbins:
KiwiNZ: or to put it another way, the top 1% of investors


No, the top 1% of all wealth holders (Everyone). Everyone has some amount of wealth (even if that number is negative).


And that wealth is invested, if it were not invested it not be wealth for long, so my point is valid.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

A Tiger in Africa, probably escaped from the Zoo.

 

 


13725 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6448

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1044873 14-May-2014 15:28
Send private message

dafman:
ajobbins:
KiwiNZ: 
You start a job, you may have to buy some clothes and a bus ticket, or parking permit and go to work 5 days a week. If you start a business you may have borrowed extensively against your home and other property etc etc and then to make that start up work your hours are not 9 to 5  with an hour for lunch but 7 to 11 with the luxury of maybe a 10am start over the pseudo weekend.

When financial and trading climates are hard the work of senior executives is considerably harder and the hours considerably longer, (something I have watched with my wife), if they keep a company trading etc through those times then they deserve the income they receive.


Sure, there is an element of this. But the policies the government put in place don't target the small business owners who might have large borrowings against personal assets. They usually target the big players, often foreign, who are only 'risking' shareholders money, not their own. And I can tell you from experience while many of then do work hard and long hours, so do a good chunk of their workers. 

The 9-5 Monday to Friday with an hour for lunch died a long time ago. I work for a global company, I often have conference calls with colleagues and/or clients in our offices around the globe at all hours of the day and night (as well as being in the office at least 8+ hours a day Mon-Fri), I have a BlackBerry that never stops making noise, and if I didn't respond to emails out of hours I would likely be deemed a 'poor performer' and 'not a team player'. It's become the norm and it's expected. I have worked weekends when projects have demanded it.


What's a blackberry?


A Frisbee :P




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

A Tiger in Africa, probably escaped from the Zoo.

 

 


4789 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2269

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1044876 14-May-2014 15:32
Send private message

KiwiNZ: 

There is also the other aspect the higher up the chain the greater risk exposure.


In absolute terms, yes. Proportionately, no. If I only have $20, and you take $5, I'm 25% down. If I have $100 billion, and I lose a billion, well... I don't about you but I'd be happy to be sitting on $99 billion.




iPad Pro 11" + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

 

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


3306 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 832


  Reply # 1044881 14-May-2014 15:51
2 people support this post
Send private message

Fred99:
And proud of it.


Welcome, fellow bottom-left-hand-corner-dweller -  I now have company in this sector!

5369 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2196


  Reply # 1044890 14-May-2014 16:07
2 people support this post
Send private message

KiwiNZ:

I have been to the Coromandel the giant hole in the ground is about as an attractive tourist site that a City landfill would make.


I'm not saying it's a tourist attraction, although I'm sure some tourists would go and have a look. 

You can explore the Coromandel Peninsula for weeks, visit dozens of beautiful scenic places, undertake lots of interesting activities and never have to go and look at Martha Hill - the one hill in thousands of hills on the Coromandel Peninsula that is actively mined.

There is ample room for both.  That's my point.








Mike

13725 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6448

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1044899 14-May-2014 16:17
Send private message

I don't need a silly survey or chart to show where I stand. I am a Green Capitalist, I have strong Green/environmental values and beliefs, I also am a capitalist, I do not believe the two are exclusionary. Having sound strong environment policies is sound business and fiscal sense. Why on earth invest in the future of our Nation if you are going to destroy it by bad environmental management.

There are many things that NZ can invest in that do not harm our environment and we should be looking to invest in ventures that are ecologically sound and can help this tired old planet, new technologies etc and become a world leader in the field and not repeat the mistakes made elsewhere.

I believe in a robust welfare system that helps those that are unable to help themselves. I also believe in a fair system that does not punish those who take risks earn more and as a result help grow this nation. I believe that the tax system we currently have in NZ is better than most and is serving us well. I don't see a Millionaire as an evil person as I don't see a person on a Job Seeker Benefit as a  bludger .




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

A Tiger in Africa, probably escaped from the Zoo.

 

 


4649 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 470

Trusted

  Reply # 1044910 14-May-2014 16:33
Send private message





Twitter: @nztechfreak
Blogs: HeadphoNZ.org


5369 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2196


  Reply # 1044930 14-May-2014 16:51
Send private message

KiwiNZ:

There are many things that NZ can invest in that do not harm our environment and we should be looking to invest in ventures that are ecologically sound and can help this tired old planet, new technologies etc and become a world leader in the field and not repeat the mistakes made elsewhere.



NZ isn't going to develop the technology that saves the planet. 

We lack the critical mass and research investment to be more than a bit player in the general tech space, or clean tech and most of what we do develop tends to get shifted offshore.  A recent clean tech example is LanzaTech who have shifted their operations to the US.  More general examples could be Navman or Tait and of course Fisher and Paykel is gradually disappearing offshore too.

You need a compelling motivation to develop technology, and if it's physical equipment you need to be physically close to whoever you are developing it for.

Ag technologies strike me as a better fit.  Gallagher, Trutest, Hamilton Jet.  All innovative technology companies who have developed out of our rural sectors, all world leading, all still here.




Mike

106 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 39


  Reply # 1044950 14-May-2014 17:14
Send private message

MikeAqua:
KiwiNZ:

There are many things that NZ can invest in that do not harm our environment and we should be looking to invest in ventures that are ecologically sound and can help this tired old planet, new technologies etc and become a world leader in the field and not repeat the mistakes made elsewhere.



NZ isn't going to develop the technology that saves the planet. 

We lack the critical mass and research investment to be more than a bit player in the general tech space, or clean tech and most of what we do develop tends to get shifted offshore.  A recent clean tech example is LanzaTech who have shifted their operations to the US.  More general examples could be Navman or Tait and of course Fisher and Paykel is gradually disappearing offshore too.

You need a compelling motivation to develop technology, and if it's physical equipment you need to be physically close to whoever you are developing it for.

Ag technologies strike me as a better fit.  Gallagher, Trutest, Hamilton Jet.  All innovative technology companies who have developed out of our rural sectors, all world leading, all still here.


Tait is setup as a trust so that it cannot be easily sold off overseas.

12407 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4099

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1045013 14-May-2014 18:12
Send private message

SaltyNZ:
KiwiNZ: 

There is also the other aspect the higher up the chain the greater risk exposure.


In absolute terms, yes. Proportionately, no. If I only have $20, and you take $5, I'm 25% down. If I have $100 billion, and I lose a billion, well... I don't about you but I'd be happy to be sitting on $99 billion.


That depends. If I lost it due to changes in asset valuation, fair enough.

If it was taken as tax to fund the poor, then no, not happy.





13725 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6448

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1045031 14-May-2014 18:44
Send private message

Geektastic:
SaltyNZ:
KiwiNZ: 

There is also the other aspect the higher up the chain the greater risk exposure.


In absolute terms, yes. Proportionately, no. If I only have $20, and you take $5, I'm 25% down. If I have $100 billion, and I lose a billion, well... I don't about you but I'd be happy to be sitting on $99 billion.


That depends. If I lost it due to changes in asset valuation, fair enough.

If it was taken as tax to fund the poor, then no, not happy.


Wow

I hope you never need help




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

A Tiger in Africa, probably escaped from the Zoo.

 

 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.