I know the 70s was a great decade, but did our labour laws have to go back in time?

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

Forums › Politics › I know the 70s was a great decade, but did our labour laws have to go back in time?

1 | 2 | 3

sen8or

1775 posts

Uber Geek

#2706375 12-May-2021 08:16

So those accumulating the wealth, don't provide opportunity for others to do the same? Do they generate all the income themselves?

My on view on trickle down may not be the same as your definition above, but for me, it gives opportunities that otherwise wouldn't be there. What people do with the opportunity is on them. We should absolutely have equality of opportunity, we should not have equality of outcome, to argue equality of outcome will dis-incentivise the innovators and entrepreneurs from creating opportunities in the first place.

Hatch

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Hatch (affiliate link).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79130 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2706409 12-May-2021 09:04

sen8or:

So those accumulating the wealth, don't provide opportunity for others to do the same? Do they generate all the income themselves?

My on view on trickle down may not be the same as your definition above, but for me, it gives opportunities that otherwise wouldn't be there. What people do with the opportunity is on them. We should absolutely have equality of opportunity, we should not have equality of outcome, to argue equality of outcome will dis-incentivise the innovators and entrepreneurs from creating opportunities in the first place.

No, because the majority of workers are paid the minimum wage and the employers fight to keep it down (where is the trickle down here?). At minimum wage it is hard to pay for home, food, education, health, leisure and more.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18602 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2706413 12-May-2021 09:09

If trickle down works, why are there so many working poor who can't afford food and clothing for their children, never mind houses or decent cars?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

sen8or

1775 posts

Uber Geek

#2706440 12-May-2021 09:55

freitasm:

No, because the majority of workers are paid the minimum wage and the employers fight to keep it down (where is the trickle down here?). At minimum wage it is hard to pay for home, food, education, health, leisure and more.

https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/labour-market-statistics-income-june-2020-quarter

Median income was $27/hour, I'm not sure on the distribution below, but as minimum wage at that time was $19odd, but that shows that at least 50% of incomes were at least 50% (or more) higher than minimum wage, hardly "the majority" earning minimum wage.

It also showed that "self employed" income dropped whilst the others increased. As the majority of NZ businesses are SMEs (I think its around 80% +/-) and they employ about 1/2 of the workforce (again, rough numbers based on memory), its the employers whos income has suffered, not the employees (wage / salary earners increased during this time). This was ofcourse a COVID period summary and it is likely that the impact of out of work employers/employees have contributed to the fall.

I have no doubt that at minimum wage its difficult to afford things, but there always has to be an incentive to grow.

1 | 2 | 3