Why I wont vote National

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Why I wont vote National

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15465

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1871055 22-Sep-2017 15:17

What kind of jobs? How do you get them to turn up, and do the work? Generally, in my experience, those who don't want to be competitively productive won't turn up even if they are "given" a job. Certainly not reliably. (Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean).

I think planting trees and plants is a fantastic idea. Looking after gardens.

Unemployment is at a very low level now. I think there are very few people actively looking for jobs who can't get one. I exclude those who want 100K for picking up litter, or who won't consider moving regions if the work they need isn't available or aren't prepared to retrain.

We have a woman who is a student, she does ironing for us at $1.50 an item, she does it for a few people, for a few hours a day to supplement her income while she studies. I'd rather give it to her than the local drycleaner. I suggested a similar thing to my nephew and he screwed his nose up at.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16317

Lifetime subscriber

#1871094 22-Sep-2017 15:46

MikeB4: I voted National but i believe there should be tax cuts now. When there is the level of homelessness, poverty, insufficent food and access to health that NZ currently has the money should be dirrected there.

Everyone professes support for Labour policies but votes National!

???????

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1871095 22-Sep-2017 15:52

Rikkitic:

MikeB4: I voted National but i believe there should be tax cuts now. When there is the level of homelessness, poverty, insufficent food and access to health that NZ currently has the money should be dirrected there.

Everyone professes support for Labour policies but votes National!

???????

I look at all issues, all policies and possible outcomes and risks. I also look at the various teams. While I agree with many of labours policies I felt that National provided a better overall package. As for teams when I compare National and Labour National came out on top

with Labour after Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson the team is not good, very light on talent and experience in my estimations.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1871096 22-Sep-2017 15:54

Unemployment is low - because it's not measured in an "honest" manner. Excludes sickness beneficiaries, under-employed, NEETs etc.

Planting trees and picking up garbage would be great if it could be done with dignity - not "boot camp" style (which does not work).

I can understand why some people might choose to not work - rather than work in low paid work with no apparent future. Starving them to submission until they work hard enough to meet your standards is somewhat feudal.

Drugs are also also a serious issue - but rather than work to eliminate problems with substance abuse/dependency and treat it as a health issue, we criminalise it and created a class of outcasts.

Mental health is a serious issue - especially with (but not limited to) young people. Horrifically under-funded.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15465

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1871097 22-Sep-2017 15:54

Rikkitic:

MikeB4: I voted National but i believe there should be tax cuts now. When there is the level of homelessness, poverty, insufficent food and access to health that NZ currently has the money should be dirrected there.

Everyone professes support for Labour policies but votes National!

???????

Not everyone I can assure you! I support *some* Labour policies but I voted National! Just because the opposition has some good ideas, doesn't make them the right choice.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15465

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1871102 22-Sep-2017 16:05

MikeB4:

Rikkitic:

MikeB4: I voted National but i believe there should be tax cuts now. When there is the level of homelessness, poverty, insufficent food and access to health that NZ currently has the money should be dirrected there.

Everyone professes support for Labour policies but votes National!

???????

I look at all issues, all policies and possible outcomes and risks. I also look at the various teams. While I agree with many of labours policies I felt that National provided a better overall package. As for teams when I compare National and Labour National came out on top

with Labour after Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson the team is not good, very light on talent and experience in my estimations.

Well put.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15465

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1871103 22-Sep-2017 16:07

Fred99:

Unemployment is low - because it's not measured in an "honest" manner. Excludes sickness beneficiaries, under-employed, NEETs etc.

Planting trees and picking up garbage would be great if it could be done with dignity - not "boot camp" style (which does not work).

I can understand why some people might choose to not work - rather than work in low paid work with no apparent future. Starving them to submission until they work hard enough to meet your standards is somewhat feudal.

Drugs are also also a serious issue - but rather than work to eliminate problems with substance abuse/dependency and treat it as a health issue, we criminalise it and created a class of outcasts.

Mental health is a serious issue - especially with (but not limited to) young people. Horrifically under-funded.

Mental health problems is not soley just under-funded, it's badly managed, and that isn't the current Governments fault, it's been a problem for as long as I can remember. It needs a rethink, but it's not easy.

Disagree with your assessment of unemployment numbers. Sickness beneficiaries shouldn't be considered unemployed in my mind. What is "under-employed"?

How do you imagine tree planting and garbage collecting gets managed other than bootcamp ? I am not saying boot camp is pleasant, but anytime you transport a group of people for a specific task for specified hours and then transport them back, you run the risk of it being labelled degrading.

I can't understand why people don't work. I have had this argument before. If you are going to earn $300 a week on a benefit and $300 a week working 40 hours, you should work. Why? Because if you are fit and able to work, you shouldn't be entitled to Welfare. Working is essential to the Human condition. Long-term unemployed often if not always have major changes to their personalities and mental well-being.

Welfare should be for people who can't work, or who need genuine assistance in some capacity.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1871129 22-Sep-2017 16:48

On official unemployment numbers, there are so many exclusions to what qualifies them as "unemployed" that it's a useful measure only as an indicator of change within a country (and even that's pretty limited) or for cross country comparison (also very limited).

Under-employment is obvious - people not considered "unemployed" but not working long enough for enough pay to survive on their wages.

I suspect that many people on sickness benefit would be capable of working - but they might not be "productive" - hence there's almost nothing for them.

Labour force definitions
Employment relates to everyone in the working-age population who, during the
reference week:
 worked for one hour or more for pay or profit in the context of an
employee/employer relationship or self-employment
 worked without pay for one hour or more in work that contributed directly to the
operation of a farm, business, or profession practice owned or operated by a
relative (before April 1990 this was defined as 15 hours or more)
 had a job but was not at work due to illness or injury, personal or family
responsibilities, bad weather or mechanical breakdown, direct involvement in
industrial dispute, leave, or holiday.
Unemployment relates to everyone in the working-age population who, during their
reference week, were without a paid job, were available for work, and:
 had actively sought work in the past four weeks ending with the reference week
(see appendix 2 for ‘active’ job search methods – only looking at job adverts in the
newspaper is not counted as actively seeking) or
 had a new job to start within four weeks.
Household Labour Force Survey sources and methods: 2015
10
Not in the labour force concerns anyone in the working-age population who is neither
employed nor unemployed (as defined above). This residual category includes:
 retired people
 people with personal or family responsibilities (eg as unpaid housework or
childcare)
 people attending educational institutions
 people permanently unable to work due to physical or mental handicaps
 people who were temporarily unavailable for work in the survey reference week
 people who were not actively seeking work.

I believe "real" unemployment is often around double the OECD estimate.

networkn:

Welfare should be for people who can't work, or who need genuine assistance in some capacity.

Yes - and we have a country where possibly the majority of the population are on "welfare". I don't mean accessing state education/healthcare benefits etc - the kinds of thing that neoliberals would dismantle entirely - in the mistaken belief that private enterprise can do everything more efficiently, but a very large proportion of the NZ population receive indirect or direct benefits, in the way of "Working for Families" rebates, housing/rent assistance, community service cards etc.

This is, in my opinion, fundamentally wrong. On a basic wage in full-time work - that should be unneeded. As much of it ends up as a subsidy to (more wealthy) employers allowing a low-wage (relative to high cost) economy, or transferred to landlords pockets by reducing down-pressure on rental costs supply/demand - thus keeping rent up (and that feeding through to house prices - particularly at the low end).

With a real job with an expectation of some job security for the future, people should have the opportunity and expectation to better themselves. It's not what I see out there. Lots of people seem to have given up. I don't think a motivation book or tape or "boot camp" will fix them.

Edit - don't assume I'm a "commie". I'm not.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1871136 22-Sep-2017 17:00

Here's a comment from Gallup (Bold/Italic emphasis by me)

Widely reported unemployment metrics in the U.S. do not accurately represent the reality of joblessness in America.

For example, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not count a person who desires work as unemployed if he or she is not working and has stopped looking for work over the past four weeks. Similarly, the BLS does not count someone as unemployed if he or she is, for instance, an out-of-work engineer, construction worker or retail manager who performs a minimum of one hour of work a week and receives at least $20 in compensation.

To measure unemployment, Gallup recommends using what we call the "Real Unemployment" metric from the BLS -- which combines those who are unemployed, underemployed and marginally attached to the workforce.

Here is one of Gallup's most important discoveries since its founding in 1935: What the whole world wants is a good job.

Gallup defines a "good job" as working 30 or more hours per week for an employer that provides a regular paycheck. Good jobs are essential to a thriving economy, a growing middle class, a booming entrepreneurial sector and, most importantly, human development. Creating as many good jobs as possible should be the No. 1 priority for business and government leaders everywhere.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1871143 22-Sep-2017 17:06

Perhaps the first thing I'd do - if elected to PM and chief dictator, would be to abolish the HSC's role in setting parliamentary salaries, and tie all MP's salaries to (multiples of) the median income for all people (ie not just the median wage of $48k or whatever it is, but the median income for all people or working age, working or not, on welfare or not. I believe that isn't much more than about $25k.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1871146 22-Sep-2017 17:13

MikeB4:

Rikkitic:

MikeB4: I voted National but i believe there should be tax cuts now. When there is the level of homelessness, poverty, insufficent food and access to health that NZ currently has the money should be dirrected there.

Everyone professes support for Labour policies but votes National!

???????

I look at all issues, all policies and possible outcomes and risks. I also look at the various teams. While I agree with many of labours policies I felt that National provided a better overall package. As for teams when I compare National and Labour National came out on top

with Labour after Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson the team is not good, very light on talent and experience in my estimations.

And then on the other side, there are idiots like Nick Smith, incompetent buffoons like Brownlee, smug and spiteful individuals like Paula Bennett, Jonathan Coleman.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1871147 22-Sep-2017 17:13

Fred99:

networkn:

Fred99:

I just can't imagine how humiliating and destructive to self-esteem it must be to have to go cap in hand to a government bureaucrat - who has the discretionary power to decide whether you're worthy.

We have got this whole "welfare" thing wrong in so many ways.

Yeah, I agree about humiliation. We were talking about this over lunch today.

I do wonder however, what your alternative suggestion is?

Welfare is supposed to be a short-term thing for the VAST majority of people.

I think we either need to go down the route of a UBI, but probably also need to create jobs for those who'll probably never be "competitively productive" - but don't necessarily deserve to be condemned to awful lives.

Not jobs "planting trees and picking up rubbish" - but real jobs for real pay providing a sense of purpose - and hope.

I don't think the free-enterprise system is going to be able to provide this - we passed the point of no return in our race to the bottom when we outsourced basically all manufacturing to the lowest wage cost providers. Next it's robots.

One concern I have about UBI is the issue of creep.

Let us set our imaginary UBI at $10,000, on which no income tax is paid.

Let us then imagine a scenario in which Recipient A finds that due to (insert problem or circumstance of choice) $10,000 is not enough and they still cannot (for example) feed or clothe their children or whatever it is.

Do they then get UBI + benefits?

It seems to me that you could set the UBI at $50,000 and some people, somewhere, would still claim to be poor or run out or be unable to provide etc etc.

I do not claim you can't do it - although paying for it seems a thorny issue - but it does have a set of complications that aren't easily solved.

Perhaps you could target it at, say, groceries by giving every person in NZ a version of the pre-loaded Visa card that only works in a food shop for food items and automatically provides, say, $50 a week credit.

If everyone gets it, there's no stigma and no excuse for not being able to feed yourself or children etc.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15465

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1871153 22-Sep-2017 17:31

Fred99:

Perhaps the first thing I'd do - if elected to PM and chief dictator, would be to abolish the HSC's role in setting parliamentary salaries, and tie all MP's salaries to (multiples of) the median income for all people (ie not just the median wage of $48k or whatever it is, but the median income for all people or working age, working or not, on welfare or not. I believe that isn't much more than about $25k.

Right, and how many people would you then expect to turn up for work on Monday morning? You'd be running the country by yourself, on let's be generous and say you can have 2 x as much.

I do agree that MP Salaries seem very high though.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15465

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1871158 22-Sep-2017 17:41

Fred99:

MikeB4:

Rikkitic:

MikeB4: I voted National but i believe there should be tax cuts now. When there is the level of homelessness, poverty, insufficent food and access to health that NZ currently has the money should be dirrected there.

Everyone professes support for Labour policies but votes National!

???????

I look at all issues, all policies and possible outcomes and risks. I also look at the various teams. While I agree with many of labours policies I felt that National provided a better overall package. As for teams when I compare National and Labour National came out on top

with Labour after Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson the team is not good, very light on talent and experience in my estimations.

And then on the other side, there are idiots like Nick Smith, incompetent buffoons like Brownlee, smug and spiteful individuals like Paula Bennett, Jonathan Coleman.

Kelvin Davis, is that you?

Good Grief!

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1871176 22-Sep-2017 18:51

networkn:

Fred99:

Perhaps the first thing I'd do - if elected to PM and chief dictator, would be to abolish the HSC's role in setting parliamentary salaries, and tie all MP's salaries to (multiples of) the median income for all people (ie not just the median wage of $48k or whatever it is, but the median income for all people or working age, working or not, on welfare or not. I believe that isn't much more than about $25k.

Right, and how many people would you then expect to turn up for work on Monday morning? You'd be running the country by yourself, on let's be generous and say you can have 2 x as much.

I do agree that MP Salaries seem very high though.

I said "multiples of".

Whatever amount that happens to be as starting point - incentivise politicians financially to improve the lot - financially - of the "median" person - ordinary New Zealanders.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8