Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

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

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | ... | 268

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1954436 9-Feb-2018 16:11

Geektastic:

MikeAqua:

Geektastic:

Do they not have carpentry, metalwork, boat building, art, jewellery making and that kind of thing available in schools here?

Metalwork, woodwork etc are taught in schools and things like 3-D printing. Some schools have Trade Academies, which take kids through trade qualifications up to the pre-trade certificate or whatever it is called today.

Great idea for kids who aren't pursuing an academic pathway after they leave school.

OK. So how come @Fred99 said

"I do think that there's an issue with the school system - some teachers consider themselves to be academics, thus "above" mere peasants, thus aren't very interested in promoting non-academic study and career options."

It sounds like those options are there (as they should be). Is it just a question of people not taking them up for some reason? I would expect the reverse given that one regular criticism I have seen in articles about "what is bad in NZ" is usually something alluding to the anti-intellectualism problem, which I would read to suggest that people regard blue collar employment as somehow more valid.

Yes - the options are in place (with things like the Youth Guarantee Scheme etc), funding is available. Actually the ones who might not be academic performers but engaged in metalwork or trades related things at school will probably be okay anyway.

There are multiple issues though with some schools not getting in behind the scheme, then also reluctance by some staff at tertiary institutions to engage - it's much easier to teach someone who's got academic ability and study skills than for someone who's failed (or has been failed by) the school system and/or are low achieving as shown through the usual grim stats showing huge socioeconomic disparity in education (and subsequent employment) outcomes. With low self-esteem comes behavioural issues, substance abuse issues, family issues - and also and very integral - money issues.

There's also an issue with "catch up" classes. If you call a remedial reading class a remedial reading class, then you're not likely to get many (or any!) applicants. With low self-esteem already, it's like offering them a pat on the back but also a dunces cap. It's much better to integrate teaching those skills with hands-on training.

bmt

574 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1954550 9-Feb-2018 20:09

Kinda makes me lol that networkn takes Treasury's view that minimum wage increase will mean job losses as gospel, but then because it backs up his own biases of course he would grasp it with both hands and run with it lol.

For instance, in June 2014, the city of Seattle opted to raise its minimum wage by 60% to $15 an hour, giving it the highest minimum wage in the United States. The move was met with similar doom-and-gloom prognostications: the city was “set to destroy the economy,” it would create “layoffs, bankruptcies, and massive price increases passed on to consumers,” it constituted a “war on low-skilled workers,” and the “results would be ugly.” One restaurateur predicted he “would lose maybe a quarter of the restaurants in town.”

None of this happened. A Berkeley study released this year found that the measure lifted wages for workers in the food services industry – the sector most affected – while having no effect on their employment. This was the case even among fast food franchises, which saw the biggest wage increase.

Opponents of the wage typically point to a University of Washington study that found many of the original, negative predictions had been borne out. But the study was highly flawed, among other things leaving out the 40% of workers who work in multi-location businesses (in other words, chains) that typically saw a larger wage increase, and whose inclusion in previous research tended to make for more rosy results. The study was widely criticised, including in the pages of Bloomberg and Fortune – hardly bastions of leftwing economics.

Seattle’s unemployment has stayed low – in fact, it’s steadily fallen over the period the wage was raised – hitting a remarkable 2.6% in April this year. Peak unemployment was 4.5%, which it hit in February 2014, months before the raise was introduced. In fact, despite having the United States’ highest minimum wage for the better part of two decades, Washington state has had a consistently lower unemployment rate than low-wage states. A local Seattle business paper reported a year after the wage went into place on a boom in restaurants in the city, with dozens of new restaurants opening.

Should probably provide the link since it's more than just that snippet that laughs in the face of networkn's "argument".

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/02-11-2017/the-evidence-is-in-a-minimum-wage-increase-doesnt-actually-mean-economic-apocalypse/

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1954600 9-Feb-2018 23:33

bmt:
Kinda makes me lol that networkn takes Treasury's view that minimum wage increase will mean job losses as gospel, but then because it backs up his own biases of course he would grasp it with both hands and run with it lol.

For instance, in June 2014, the city of Seattle opted to raise its minimum wage by 60% to $15 an hour, giving it the highest minimum wage in the United States. The move was met with similar doom-and-gloom prognostications: the city was “set to destroy the economy,” it would create “layoffs, bankruptcies, and massive price increases passed on to consumers,” it constituted a “war on low-skilled workers,” and the “results would be ugly.” One restaurateur predicted he “would lose maybe a quarter of the restaurants in town.”

None of this happened. A Berkeley study released this year found that the measure lifted wages for workers in the food services industry – the sector most affected – while having no effect on their employment. This was the case even among fast food franchises, which saw the biggest wage increase.

Opponents of the wage typically point to a University of Washington study that found many of the original, negative predictions had been borne out. But the study was highly flawed, among other things leaving out the 40% of workers who work in multi-location businesses (in other words, chains) that typically saw a larger wage increase, and whose inclusion in previous research tended to make for more rosy results. The study was widely criticised, including in the pages of Bloomberg and Fortune – hardly bastions of leftwing economics.

Seattle’s unemployment has stayed low – in fact, it’s steadily fallen over the period the wage was raised – hitting a remarkable 2.6% in April this year. Peak unemployment was 4.5%, which it hit in February 2014, months before the raise was introduced. In fact, despite having the United States’ highest minimum wage for the better part of two decades, Washington state has had a consistently lower unemployment rate than low-wage states. A local Seattle business paper reported a year after the wage went into place on a boom in restaurants in the city, with dozens of new restaurants opening.

Should probably provide the link since it's more than just that snippet that laughs in the face of networkn's "argument".

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/02-11-2017/the-evidence-is-in-a-minimum-wage-increase-doesnt-actually-mean-economic-apocalypse/

I sincerely hope that scenario plays out similarly in NZ. And I'm being sincere in saying that. However, basic economic principles suggest the direct opposite ( and I think a lot of people don't understand that). Nevertheless, if the minimum wage increases don't have the dire consequences that @networkn predicted, it doesn't necessarily disprove all economic principles.

It would be interesting to know what the government hopes to achieve out of this, presumably they have established a measure of success for this change.

However, irrespective of opinions, it must be acknowledged that the Treasury is not a politically motivated body - they are supposed to be unbiased, intelligent and informative analysis of policy. It is easy to suggest that they are wrong be or might be wrong , however, I would be loathe to assume that anybody on this forum, me included, or indeed even the government themselves, are qualified to criticize to their assumptions.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1954685 10-Feb-2018 10:33

Lifting wages in a normal business is predicated on the business owners making that decision and being able to afford it because the employees are doing a good job.

Lifting minimum wages by government diktat is predicated on no such thing - it is just an order from on high to pay more regardless of whether the business can afford it.

I know which one I think is most likely to see long term success.

Someone famous once said that the job of economic forecasters was to make astrologers look good, so we shall see with regard to Treasury!

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1954724 10-Feb-2018 11:33

bmt:

Kinda makes me lol that networkn takes Treasury's view that minimum wage increase will mean job losses as gospel, but then because it backs up his own biases of course he would grasp it with both hands and run with it lol.

For instance, in June 2014, the city of Seattle opted to raise its minimum wage by 60% to $15 an hour, giving it the highest minimum wage in the United States. The move was met with similar doom-and-gloom prognostications: the city was “set to destroy the economy,” it would create “layoffs, bankruptcies, and massive price increases passed on to consumers,” it constituted a “war on low-skilled workers,” and the “results would be ugly.” One restaurateur predicted he “would lose maybe a quarter of the restaurants in town.”

None of this happened. A Berkeley study released this year found that the measure lifted wages for workers in the food services industry – the sector most affected – while having no effect on their employment. This was the case even among fast food franchises, which saw the biggest wage increase.

Opponents of the wage typically point to a University of Washington study that found many of the original, negative predictions had been borne out. But the study was highly flawed, among other things leaving out the 40% of workers who work in multi-location businesses (in other words, chains) that typically saw a larger wage increase, and whose inclusion in previous research tended to make for more rosy results. The study was widely criticised, including in the pages of Bloomberg and Fortune – hardly bastions of leftwing economics.

Seattle’s unemployment has stayed low – in fact, it’s steadily fallen over the period the wage was raised – hitting a remarkable 2.6% in April this year. Peak unemployment was 4.5%, which it hit in February 2014, months before the raise was introduced. In fact, despite having the United States’ highest minimum wage for the better part of two decades, Washington state has had a consistently lower unemployment rate than low-wage states. A local Seattle business paper reported a year after the wage went into place on a boom in restaurants in the city, with dozens of new restaurants opening.

Should probably provide the link since it's more than just that snippet that laughs in the face of networkn's "argument".

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/02-11-2017/the-evidence-is-in-a-minimum-wage-increase-doesnt-actually-mean-economic-apocalypse/

I am wondering why you seem so angry? I wonder if you even read my posts? I support a minimum pay increase, what I don't support is 30+% so quickly.

I can't refute your study with one of my own, I haven't had a chance to do my own research, however, I do have some thoughts you may want to consider. (Though to be fair, your tone suggest there would no chance of you considering a position other than your own).

Seattle is a city, not a country. (It's not even an entire state)

Does Seattle have enough similarities to the NZ economy to be more than just passingly relevant?

You seem to be suggesting treasury has done none of it's own research and cannot be trusted in this regard. If they can't be trusted with this information, are you suggesting we disband them, because surely if they get something this fundamentally incorrect, maybe they are just incompetent?

Do you run a business BMT? I do. Though, none of my staff are on minimum wage. I speak to businesses all day every day. I work next to one that employs minimum wage staff. He said he can cope with 15.75 going to about $17, beyond that, his prices will increase, and his customers will not afford this which will produce a drop in revenue. He and his accountant sat down and worked out that unless customers were prepared to wear a price pretty signifcant price increase (given his company is labour based), he will need to lay more than 20% of his workers. He himself supports an increase in the minimum wage, but cannot afford 30% over 4 years.

It's one example, granted, but I have spoken to others who are talking much the same way. Perhaps the economy will boom and they won't lay off any more staff, but I also feel that affects of a minimum wage increase aren't always immediately felt. It will bite harder if the economy drops.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1954768 10-Feb-2018 12:58

Geektastic:
Lifting wages in a normal business is predicated on the business owners making that decision and being able to afford it because the employees are doing a good job.

Lifting minimum wages by government diktat is predicated on no such thing - it is just an order from on high to pay more regardless of whether the business can afford it.

I know which one I think is most likely to see long term success.

Someone famous once said that the job of economic forecasters was to make astrologers look good, so we shall see with regard to Treasury!

If in the real world that happened it would be great the reality is the areas where minimum pay is the norm they do not increase wages with being dragged kicking and screaming no matter how good their bottom line is.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1954851 10-Feb-2018 15:52

MikeB4:
Geektastic:
Lifting wages in a normal business is predicated on the business owners making that decision and being able to afford it because the employees are doing a good job.

Lifting minimum wages by government diktat is predicated on no such thing - it is just an order from on high to pay more regardless of whether the business can afford it.

I know which one I think is most likely to see long term success.

Someone famous once said that the job of economic forecasters was to make astrologers look good, so we shall see with regard to Treasury!

If in the real world that happened it would be great the reality is the areas where minimum pay is the norm they do not increase wages with being dragged kicking and screaming no matter how good their bottom line is.

They aren't obligated to do so and neither are employees entitled to automatic magic wage increases.

If employees do not like their pay, they are free to resign and move. If employers wish to retain good staff they are free to increase pay.

The government should keep it's meddling to it's own staff.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1954862 10-Feb-2018 16:19

Geektastic:

They aren't obligated to do so and neither are employees entitled to automatic magic wage increases.

If employees do not like their pay, they are free to resign and move. If employers wish to retain good staff they are free to increase pay.

The government should keep it's meddling to it's own staff.

And in the real world things are a lot different. But I do like the fantasy writing here

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1955007 11-Feb-2018 00:30

Re the infallibility or otherwise of Treasury figures and predictions, I came across this on Kiwiblog

"More significantly for headline writers, we were told the package “will lift about 88,000 New Zealand children out of poverty”.

Oops. Maybe not.

This morning Radio NZ says Treasury is admitting it made a “deeply regrettable mistake”by likely overstating how many children would be lifted out of poverty as a result of the families package.

The extent of the error – which also affects National’s package – is still being determined.

Officials had estimated Labour’s plan would lift 88,000 children out of poverty by 2021.

Secretary to the Treasury Gabriel Makhlouf said it is currently remodelling the projected impact of both packages and expects the new numbers to available in late February."

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1955108 11-Feb-2018 10:18

networkn:

You seem to be suggesting treasury has done none of it's own research and cannot be trusted in this regard. If they can't be trusted with this information, are you suggesting we disband them, because surely if they get something this fundamentally incorrect, maybe they are just incompetent?

See above.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1956189 13-Feb-2018 10:28

So after all the criticism of the previous Government by the current, they just scored $600M to spend on their misplaced plans. Maybe they will be able to execute some of these plans, despite their best efforts not to.

By the time they give all public servants a payrise, they should be literally able to roll in money.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1956195 13-Feb-2018 10:39

Isn't it ghastly how the 'terrible capitalists' are bankrolling the government. Lol

Why would the government want to decrease the tax take through decreased business confidence etc...?

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1956197 13-Feb-2018 10:41

rjt123: Isn't it ghastly how the 'terrible capitalists' are bankrolling the government. Lol

Why would the government want to decrease the tax take through decreased business confidence etc...?

Because they don't understand business, they think they understand people and don't seem to understand without one, there can be no others (in happiness).

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1958937 16-Feb-2018 09:26

So my wife is a Doctor, and last night in one of the groups she is in, a message was posted of a practice (not hers) of 4 Doctors who have analyzed the impact of Labours intent to reduce doctors fees for most people. The practice calculates conservatively, that they will lose $120,000 in their practice each year, as a result of these changes.

This is a result of the fact that cheaper doctors fees, in reality, means that doctors will see each patient more times and that more people will enroll with a doctor, but Labour is doing nothing to change what each practice gets for a patient. On top of that, as a result of being busier, pressure is being put on practices and as a result, the doctors who work there, to see more patients in a day. Most doctors work on a 10-15 minute appointment time. My wife, an experienced doctor, feels that at 15 minutes she doesn't have a full chance to properly provide care, and it's likely practices will mandate 5 minutes less per patient (30%) further reducing the level of care. Female doctors especially will have a more difficult time of this, because traditionally, female medical issues can take more time and be more complex. Also if someone sees an A&E instead of their registered GP, the practice must pay the doctor that saw their patient, and it only takes 3 external visits for the primary care physician to be losing money on a patient, but still require to look after them the rest of the time.

On one hand most doctors believe that more regular visits is better for patient care and health, and more people enrolled is also good, but without doing something to compensate practices for this, it just means doctors already stretched, working long hours will get less money and provide less quality care. It's getting harder and harder to get Doctors into General Practice and the medical council has been asking the Government to urgently address these proposed changes for fear of triggering a national healthcare crisis. Locums are used extensively, but there is a shortage there as well.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1958953 16-Feb-2018 09:52

So is this because Labour wants to reduce fees (not a bad idea in itself) or because the system is broken, which I would imagine goes way back?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | ... | 268