How has the average worker done under Labour?
If one believed some of the more hysterical commenters, the 1990s was a time of slavery and child labour and the average worker did far worse than under Labour. Sadly for their little fantasy world, the facts say something else.
Let’s look at our friend, the Quarterly Employment Survey from Stats NZ. And let’s look at the nine years from June 1990 to June 1999 under National and the eight years from June 1999 to June 2007 under Labour. The average ordinary-time weekly earnings were:
Gross average ordinary-time weekly earnings
1990: $502.95
1999: $639.96
2007: $846.19
So the average weekly earnings went up $137.01 under National and $194.74 under Labour. So wow maybe Labour is much better for the average worker. What was the increase as a percentage? National 27.2% vs Labour 32.2%. Still Labour ahead, and in one fewer year.
But is there something missing?? Yes, there is. A couple of things. We forgot to look at income tax. How much pay does the average worker get after tax is deducted. A quick check at the then tax tables and we have:
Net average ordinary-time weekly earnings
1990: $385.81
1999: $516.50
2007: $665.33
So the net average weekly earnings went up $130.69 under National and $139.76 under Labour. Hmmn not much of a difference. So what was the increase as a percentage? National 33.9% vs Labour 28.8%. An average of 3.76% per year vs 3.60% – almost no difference. So perhaps there is no difference.
But wait there’s still one further factor to take into account. One could buy a lot more in 1990 than you could in 2007 for the same wage. We need to inflation adjust. Now the CPI was 716 in 1990, 832 in 1999 and 1020 in 2007. So let’s look at real net average ordinary-time workings in June 2007 dollars.
Real net average ordinary-time weekly earnings
1990: $549.62
1999: $633.21
2007: $665.33
So the net average weekly earnings went up $83.59 under National and $33.90 under Labour. Yep the average worker in the nasty 90s ended up with an extra $84 a week while under caring kind Labour they are only $34 better off – an increase in weekly real take home pay of really just $4 every year.
And what was the increase as a percentage? National 15.2% vs Labour 5.1%. Yes the average worker’s take home pay went up 15% under National and a miserly 5% under Labour. Just 5% after eight years.
Now apologists will claim it has all gone into Working for Families etc. Well that only affects 20% of families. And regardless that is a separate comparison about welfare support. There were significant boosts in the 1990s to family support also.
This is what happens when you never ever reduce tax rates and you let inflation get away on you. It eats up all the extra income the average family gets.
So the next time someone drones on about how bad the 1990s were for the average worker. Just remember they were three times better than the last eight years.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:05 am
Am I allowed to say the unemployment word?
October 18th, 2007 at 7:17 am
I’m glad you mention employment and unemployment. I’ll be doing a separate post on that issue, exposing the myths around that also.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Can you explain this spare capaicty thing? didnt john key say that unemployment was so low that it was driving wages up and that this needed to be “fixed”?
October 18th, 2007 at 7:20 am
I like the article David, well researched and presented.
I do think, however, changes in the value of government funded services that the average worker receives need to be accounted for.
By leaving this side of the equation out, hard though it is to control for, you will always make a government that raises taxes and spending look bad, even if that additional spending was in fact worth the cost (however defined).
It is for this reason that a parallel argument that says high tax countries can’t compete with low tax countries under free trade is wrong: the high taxes buy infrastructure and services that people and businesses paying those taxes value.
[DPF: Ben I agree that this only looks at real after tax wages, and there are wider issues than that. I mainly wanted to dispeal the myth that growth in the real average after tax wage was bad in the 1990s and is better now.
Valuing changes in government services is not so simple as it isn’t about the money spent, but the outcomes. The CIS has done some analysis showing that outcomes in health and education etc have not increased faster in the 2000s than previously. But that is a debate for another day.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Is there a correllation between the low pay and ‘full-employment’ ie if we had to pay more fewer would be employed?
And what is the different set of conditions by which welfare is judged?
All I can say is, if things are so great, why is everyone who is working chasing fewer dollars and being able to buy less with their cash,. Unless ‘easy credit’ was not available, who could save up for say a new washing machine? Also what is the inflationary cost of all the ‘bu-now, pay later’ financing of the population? It never seems to comeup in discussion, I suspect, because it is the one fig-leaf the government have over an economic policy which seems designed to milk the people for every penny.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:22 am
The other myth you might like to expose David, is the ‘health cuts’ under Jenny Shipley. As I recall there were no cuts to health spending and this was a lie that somehow got traction in the media and the public psyche.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:24 am
What Key was referring to is having wages go up without a productivity increase. Increasing our labour productivity is one of the keys to remaining competitive internationally.
The tax cuts in Australia will mean you pay zero tax on your first $20,000. Now think about what a massive incentive that is for a parent to take up some part-time work – knowing they will keep 100% of it. This will increase capacity in the economy, increase GDP and taxation and allow for greater social spending and further tax reductions – increasing take home pay.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:26 am
You might also want to fix up those myths about the massive privitisation under previous national governments, myths about doing cheep deals for mates, ohh and prove theres no such thing as the exclusive breatheren, all just a labour/left wing conspriciy
[DPF: A good idea. The level of privatisation under National was in fact relatively modest, I will pull out the facts on this at some stage]
October 18th, 2007 at 7:28 am
I find it incredible that some people tout working for families as the response to overtaxing and low wages. Abolishing tax for one group and substantiallly increasing it for another is capricious and oppressive, and hardly democratic.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Well researched post David. Another consideration could be interest rates over that period. I seem to recall that they were astronomical and that obviously impacted home ownership and rental costs.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Excellent Post. Tane etc will be choking on their cornies after reading this.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Excellent post, I agree, although there is more depth to come yet. It will be interesting looking at this with the unemployment analysis and the analysis of governmental support included. Ideally we should look at the whole picture, not just at one part of it.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Mike drooled “You might also want to fix up those myths about the massive privitisation under previous national governments, myths about doing cheep deals for mates, ohh and prove theres no such thing as the exclusive breatheren, all just a labour/left wing conspriciy”
Well mike, if he tried, and did it in a scholarly, well researched, open-for-debate forum, and succeeded (like it looks like he’s doing with this one) what would you have to cry about then?
Or is this just a big right wing national conspiracy?
Stop being a baby, if you can’t prove DPF wrong then just shut up and take it.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:39 am
You might also want to fix up those myths about the massive privitisation under previous national governments
So how many National governments have there been between the Lange lead Labour Government that started the ‘massive’ privitisation and todays Clark lead one?
And please dont tell me you want to go back to waiting 2-3 weeks for your phone to be connected?
myths about doing cheep deals for mates,
How about instead one is done about Labour filling the puiblic service with incompentent Labour party hacks – No, oh well I guess if you can make up shit, I can to.
ohh and prove theres no such thing as the exclusive breatheren, all just a labour/left wing conspriciy
Yes, god forbid anyone dare speak out against Dear Leader.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Yes, brace yourselves folks. the ‘labour good, national bad’ crowd (as burt calls ‘em) will be spitting poison today.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:42 am
‘fixing’ wages being driven up is simple.
The business sector simply raises prices and the wage rises become non existent
wages up
prices up
wages up
prices up
Could some one confirm to my simple understanding that if wages were superior to prices inflation could be controlled through confidence to the consumer.
In fact would not this equate to fiscal responsibilty instead of fiscal deprivation and the need for Kiwi Saver which I suspect is hindering more than helping.
There are many resons why people can’t save (eh Winston)
and so many must be hurting with being deprived of more cash.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Excellent Post. Tane etc will be choking on their cornies after reading this.
Nah – just obfuscate at threadjack on the fringe issues.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:44 am
What about the wage distribution? Employment growth over the last few years has been the result of increased labour force participation in low paid jobs. As a result,the “average wage” of the group we are looking at will be biased downward because we have added a whole lot of below average data points to our sample.
I’m not disagreeing with your conclusion, ultimately I think that real economic factors are more important for driving wage and economic growth rather than arbitrary government policy. I just think that the change in labour force participation may explain some of the gap.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:46 am
KK: I think the incredibly high interest rates you were talking about refer to the 1980″s. they peaked in June of 1987 at 20.5%.
Here’s some stats. Jan 1990 they were 14.8% and by the end of 1999 they were 7.2%.
Jan 2000 they were 7.6 % and Aug 2007 10.6%.
In 87 if you were in the agricultural sector it wasn’t unheard of to be paying over 25%; I know of one instance where a farmer (who got into financial trouble because of the interest rates) was paying over 30%!
October 18th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Matt – my analysis is more aimed at debunking the claims that the average worker did horribly in the 1990s in terms of pay. I hope I have achieved that. I agree there are many factors beyond government policy.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:54 am
And to make matters worse the increases in taxation have driven nominal wages as people try and compensate for the drop in their living standards. And in areas where there is an international demand the Government has had to have wopping increases which would have been moderated had this country stayed compeditive with Australia’s after tax tax and we could easily have done that. So high tax rates have fueled wage inflation which fuels inflation generally. This silly inflationary argument of Dr Cullen’s against tax cuts needs tro be popped.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:54 am
lesley, thanks for that info. i recall those rates… but not the timing of their reduction to more, um, normal levels. cheers.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Thank you David for this well researched article.
I find it astonishing that the MSM is seemingly incapable of presenting the NZ public with these comparisons.
I am heartily sick of the carping Labour supporters who love to present the 90s as Dickensian.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Tim, income taxes will only drive wage inflation when labour has market power, so that labour can dive the price (wage) of their own labour. Even if labour does have sufficient market power to drive wages, the reduction in domestic demand from lower income should have a greater deflationary effect.
David, I agree with your point about wage growth needs to be tied to productivity growth, or else the nominal increase in wages is taken out by inflation. But I think that all these factors are inter-related. If participation rates rise, productivity will fall, and as a result real wage rates will fall. I think that some people on the left miss the trade-off between having everyone in work and having high wage growth. Although to be fair I’m sure some people on the right exaggerate the difference.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:03 am
David, this is a joke. As Matt Nolan points out, you’ve taken the figures for the average wage, but as you know income distribution under National became horribly uneven. I suspect if you did the same thing for median wage you’d find a very different outcome.
More importantly, you’re assuming that tax cuts come out of thin air – they don’t. Workers who got a tax cut ended up paying far more for public services, while at the same time the government was letting our infrastructure deteriorate through lack of investment – we’re still paying for that now. Again, if you included the costs that were privatised to working families in the 90s you’d have a very different outcome.
I’d also be interested to know what happened to the average hourly wage. A lot of workers had their pay cut or stagnate under National, but picked up extra hours to make up the difference. Of course, their overtime rates got cut under the ECA, but that just meant they worked more hours. To try and pretend they were better off because of this is absurd.
You’ve also failed to mention unemployment, which was heading into double figures under National. For Maori it got into 40 percents in some regions. But then they were all just victims of welfare dependency, weren’t they?
[DPF: I wondered if Tane would be able to provide a single fact in rebuttal. The fact he hasn't I take as concession that it is undisputed that the real average take home pay has increased far less since 1999. The other issues such as public services are another debate - one I've touched on before. Tane is dreaming if he thinks the use of median rather than mean would significantly dent the huge difference. I used mean because that data is easily available. I'll have a look for median data but that can be harder to get.]
October 18th, 2007 at 8:06 am
thats OK KK. Just showing my age
October 18th, 2007 at 8:06 am
And a hearty good morning to you Tane!
October 18th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Linda Reid said “The other myth you might like to expose David, is the ‘health cuts’ under Jenny Shipley. As I recall there were no cuts to health spending and this was a lie that somehow got traction in the media and the public psyche.”
Linda, DPF might also wish to comment on the high number of hospital closures, “disestablishments” and forced amalgamations of hospital boards into Area Health Boards in the late 1980’s – the Minister at the time, as I remember well from working in the health service during that period was none other than Helen Clark.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:16 am
More importantly, you’re assuming that tax cuts come out of thin air – they don’t.
No they dont do they, but how about they come out of the rather obese surplus Mr Cullen has?
Workers who got a tax cut ended up paying far more for public services, while at the same time the government was letting our infrastructure deteriorate through lack of investment – we’re still paying for that now.
So I take it when Cullen announces his bribe before the next election you will campaign against them as people will have to pay more for public services?
October 18th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Tane said “David, this is a joke. As Matt Nolan points out, you’ve taken the figures for the average wage, but as you know income distribution under National became horribly uneven. I suspect if you did the same thing for median wage you’d find a very different outcome.”
Very predictable Tane – the socialist “Robin Hood” mantra – take from the rich and give to the poor. In general, those on high incomes have earned the privilege!
BTW – did you see this on the Herald website? Headline says “Ministry Chief’s Pay Nudges $500,000)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10470597
Pretty good wedge in the public service eh – bet you despise that!
October 18th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Linda you are making a new lie.
There were no “cuts” to health spending since they moved the disability spending which used to a Social welfare program to health. So there was a full $1 billion in 1990 that was added to health vote but was merely a bookkeeping entry.
Plus the ‘welfare ‘ cuts were made to seem worse ( and make Ruth look good) by the same mechanism.
ps and by disability I mean IHC & CCS and so one not those on sickness benefits
October 18th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Nice try Bevan. Yes, paying out tax cuts bears an opportunity cost because it could have otherwise been spent on better public services. Yes, I would oppose across-the-board tax cuts as we’re not a highly taxed country, nor is government spending as a percentage of GDP significantly higher than it was under National. I’d rather see the surplus start moving us towards something like free healthcare or helping young families into their first home. I’m also not a Cullen man, so I’m not quite sure what your point is.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:26 am
In general, those on high incomes have earned the privilege!
Or they’ve managed to skew the playing field in such a way that they’re able to amass wealth hugely disproportionate to their effort or their merits. When Telecom were able to deunionse its workforce, cut their overtime rates and farmed them out to contractors who compete on labour costs it’s no surprise their CEO earns $5m a year while their workers are struggling to even get a pay rise on less than 1% of that amount.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Ok guys, Tane says it’s a joke…. move along, nothing to see here.
Tane’s full of bulls&%t bluster as per usual.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Tane, you know thats a whole lot of words for no point at all…..
I’d rather see the surplus start moving us towards something like free healthcare
Yes because Labour has been so darn good with their current health spending havnt they, when Labour are in charge more $ does not equal better services.
helping young families into their first home.
Now that Id like to see, however looking at the track record of this government I’d hate to know the cut off rate – no doubt it will be solely targeted at their voting base.
I’m also not a Cullen man, so I’m not quite sure what your point is.
Good, I look forward to hearing you denounce any tax cut package he comes up with as hypocritical when in the past he has been dead set against them.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Bevan, speaking of a whole lot of words for no point at all… have you read over your own post?
October 18th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Tane, telecom’s really good to work for. Pays well, good perks, incentives for performance…. STFU.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Tane – if you want to go back to the “good old days” of a unionised workforce at Telecom, that’s your business. I’d much rather have a modern, responsive (most of the time!) business that doesn’t make you wait for two weeks just to have a phone connected! I am old enough to remember the “bad old days” – are you?
October 18th, 2007 at 8:32 am
BTW – did you see this on the Herald website? Headline says “Ministry Chief’s Pay Nudges $500,000)
Let’s see here – Running a Ministry, $500k. Running a telephone company, $5m. Roughly equivalent jobs with roughly equivalent responsibilities. One gets paid ten times the other. So what’s this about public service extravagance?
October 18th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Tane, telecom’s really good to work for. Pays well, good perks, incentives for performance…. STFU.
Yes Ive worked for them as well, very good work environment and I think the look after the employees very well.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:34 am
IV2, it’s ridiculous (note the spelling) to claim that a unionised workforce is to blame for a badly run company. My mate works at TelstraClear and it’s unionised, but I don’t see that company falling apart. Got any evidence that this was the case in Telecom? Thought not.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:37 am
DPF – you can’t just ignore Working For Families – it only goes to 20% of families but how many benefited signficantly from National’s tax changes when the averge (let alone median) pay was well below the 33% bracket even befor it was moved.
You also ignore the fact that a lot more people are in work now than they were in the 1990s – the avwerage income for working age people would be a better comparison.
Also, this is only ordinary-time earnings – overtime makes up a greater portion of many workers’ income following the replacement of the ECA with the ERA.
An average isn’t a median as you know David, just because the average rose does not mean good times for all – I’ll have a look at the decile figures and see but I suspect you saw a massive increase for the upper deciles in the 1990s while we know the lower ones stood still or went backwards.
Also, and this is a small one 8 years of Labour, 9 years of National.
[DPF: Sam you are welcome to try and produce any data to rebut this. I acknowledge already what the data and and does not show. The major thing is it rebuts the claim that the average workers pay levels suffered under National. You also misrepresent the tax changes in the 90s - the 33 cent rate wasn't touched - the median rate was the one reduced, so basically every worker benefited. And also there were increases to family support in the 1990s also - bloody generous ones if I recall - added $100 a week to some pay packets]
October 18th, 2007 at 8:38 am
<i>The other issues such as public services are another debate – one I’ve touched on before.</i>
No David, that is the debate. The government could drop the tax rate to 5% tomorrow and say everyone’s better off. But they wouldn’t be. Taxes are about trade-offs, and any figures that ignore one side of the equation are less than informative – they’re downright misleading.
[DPF: I take that as an acknowledgement that you no longer claim workers got paid less under National. You merely now claim public services have got better. Incidentally even if one excludes tax from the equation, gross real average earnings did better under National than Labour. ]
October 18th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Tane – we moved my in-laws into a new house in Christchurch last month. Rang Telstra-Clear on Monday, phone connected on Friday, broadband pack took two weeks to arrive, and when it did, they’d sent the wrong gear (had specifically requested a wireless router). Got any evidence that unionised is better? Thought not!
October 18th, 2007 at 8:42 am
IV2, my argument is that whether or not your workers are protected by a collective agreement is irrelevant to how quickly you can connect a phone line. You’re the one making the claim, and as I suspected you have no evidence.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:47 am
IV2, my argument is that whether or not your workers are protected by a collective agreement is irrelevant to how quickly you can connect a phone line. You’re the one making the claim, and as I suspected you have no evidence.
Well the unionised workers arnt protected if the consumer gets tired of the lack of service. The consumer is free to spend his money elsewhere.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Mr Farrar may be unaware of this, but in the majority of cases it is employers not the government that sets wage rates.
If you want to argue that NZ employers are a bunch of money grabbing, profit obsessed, low paying exploiters, I’m happy to agree.
I don’t think however arguing such a thing would be a good move for the Nats though, where would the anonymous donations come from then?
[DPF: And another usual suspect who can't argue back with facts]
October 18th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Tane said: No David, that is the debate. The government could drop the tax rate to 5% tomorrow and say everyone’s better off. But they wouldn’t be. Taxes are about trade-offs, and any figures that ignore one side of the equation are less than informative – they’re downright misleading.
This is a fascinating example of political rhetoric. The structure and grammar seem straightforward, and it looks as if it means something. But for the life of me I can’t figure out what Tane actually said.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:55 am
sonic: The anonymous donations would come from the same place Labour get’s their’s. Oh, and congratulations on abolishing 200 years of economic thought in a single post. What’s your next target? Denying gravity?
October 18th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Sonic, while employers directly set most wage rates, the government is responsible for the industrial relations system that largely determines workers’ ability to demand higher wages. That’s something most people – even a lot of left-liberals – fail to understand, but employers understand very well. That’s why industrial relations is such a big deal for them – because they know that with the right IR regime they can screw down wages and conditions. As John Key himself said, “labour and industrial relations is something that is quite passionate to the National Party, we care about it”.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Who is NZ’s biggest employer?
October 18th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Heh. DPF set out to dispel a particular myth, which over the last month or so Tane and Nome have stated a number of times – that wages have risen faster under Labour. They haven’t, he has shown that. So they are trying to move the debate to whether public services are better, to whether taxes are good, to whose fault that is, and a bunch of other places.
The bottom line, they were wrong, and DPF has a slam dunk. That is how you use statistics well – not the Nome quotes where he links to a study and then quotes the collective bargaining figure from that study as 80% when it is actually 60%.
My view, may as well stop reading this thread. The left have no comeback, they are moving the debate. I am sure DPF will come along later and take away the new myths they are trying to create – for example:
– that public services have improved under Labour
– that infrastructure was run down under National
– that National made health cuts
October 18th, 2007 at 9:00 am
for the life of me I can’t figure out what Tane actually said.
milo, perhaps you should learn to read. It’s pretty straightforward. To say that cutting taxes puts more money in people’s pockets is a truism. Whether they’re actually better off for it is another thing entirely. If you cut my taxes by $20 but that leads to public service cuts and user pays that end up costing me $50 then I’m not better off. But according to Farrar’s figures I would be.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:03 am
<i>that wages have risen faster under Labour. They haven’t, he has shown that. </i>
Paul, median wages have grown faster under Labour. That’s a fact, and David can’t deny it. He can only obfuscate, and he’s doing a very good job by the sounds of it.
[DPF: Tane thinks that nominal gross wages are more important than real net wages. Glad you don't bargain on my behalf]
October 18th, 2007 at 9:03 am
So, no answers for the huge flaws in the figures? David? anyone?
DPF – these are stats figures I presume, which survey?
[DPF: Sam - try reading the main post for the answer to your question. ]
October 18th, 2007 at 9:07 am
“The anonymous donations would come from the same place Labour get’s their’s”
You know who the anonymous donors are?
Oh tell us more!
October 18th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Thanks for the reading advice Tane, but I think I’m right.
But you have no evidence that tax cuts are inefficient. In fact, the evidence points the other way, due to the deadweight costs of income redistribution.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Milo, I didn’t use the word inefficient – that’s a different argument altogether. My point is that they’re inequitable, and that working people are better off with strong wage growth and decent public services than they are with tax cuts. And that simply arguing that cutting the tax rate will put more money in your pocket is only telling half the story.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:17 am
David: as usual your post is misleading. Average wage increases aren’t actually a good indication of improvements in wages for “average workers” – because in New Zealand very wage/salary increases for workers in the upper quartile have dragged the average up substantially since National introduced the employment contracts act in 1991 (they purposefully encourage wage variability between high skilled and low skilled workers).
“there was rapid increase in wage dispersion at the top of distribution (decile 5 and decile 10), concentrated in the 1990s after the ECA was enacted”
Page 14
http://ideas.repec.org/p/epa/cepawp/2002-03.html
So it makes much more sense to look at increases in median (workers at decile 5 in the distribution) wage increases if you want to give an accurate picture of how Labour and National have benefited “average” workers.
Wonder why you didn’t post these figures David?
[DPF: I only had data for average earnings. But feel free to send me the median data, and I will adjust it for tax and CPI and post it. But I want data for FT adults. The median data for all NZers aged 15 and up includes a 16 year old working 10 hours a week. The debate is about adults who are working FT to support themselves and/or their partner.]
October 18th, 2007 at 9:17 am
“..There were significant boosts in the 1990s to family support also..”
whoar..!..that’s a whopper..!
especially coming from one who was so closely involved in urging the dismantling of the social welfare system..
by ’ship ‘n ruth’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: That wasn't to family support. In the mid 1990s there were significant boosts to family support and child tax credits. I know - I did the propaganda for them. I constructed the tables which showed how much better off a family of x on y income would be.]
October 18th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Tane said “And that simply arguing that cutting the tax rate will put more money in your pocket is only telling half the story.”
Which of course is Cullen & Co’s ideal eh Tane – THEY want to make MY spending decisions for me, because THEY know what’s in MY best interest. Sorry, I don’t share that view, and no amount of persuasion will cause me to change that view. I earn the money; I’m more than capable of deciding how I will spend that which the government doesn’t take from me.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:23 am
More information about what National did to “average” workers in the 1990s.
As to levels of remuneration, the most significant impact that the ECA had on those working in the secondary labour market was the incremental reduction in the existence of penal rates. Awards typically contained clock hour clauses, which provided that workers engaged to perform work outside normal hours of work, typically Monday to Friday, 8a.m. to 6p.m., were to receive additional payments or “penal rates” (Harbridge and Walsh, 2002: 431). Under the bargaining arrangements of the ECA there was a 40 percent reduction in hours paid as overtime for all employees from 1991 to 1993 (Hector, Hemming, and Hubble, 1993 cited in Danin 1997: 240). This reduction was more pronounced in the secondary labour market. For example, in the restaurants and hotels sector premium or penal rates were reported to have all but disappeared by 1995 (Hammond and Harbridge, 1995:370). Furthermore, in McLaughlin and Rasmussen’s (1998) survey of the retail sector it was found that 80 percent of those working weekends reported receiving no weekend rates and 75 percent of respondents received no overtime pay. Even where penal rates remain there has been a trend towards their trimming down (Harbridge et al., 2000 cited in Harbridge and Walsh, 2002: 431).
This attack on penal rates in the secondary labour market from the mid 1980s through to the late 1990s had a massive impact on the pay packets of those in the secondary labour market. Remarks from an interviewee of “The Second Sweating Commission” are indicative of this impact …. I cannot stress enough how important these penal rates are to our profession. They are the difference between paying the bills this week and saving up and paying them next week or the next (Bunkle 1990:10).
A further impact that the ECA had on remuneration levels in the secondary labour market was the stagnation of the basic wage rate. For example, in McLaughlin and Rasmussen’s (1998) survey it was found that 3 percent of respondents had experienced a decrease in their basic wage (wage without penal rates) within the last 12 months, while 41 percent had received no pay increase (56 percent had received an increase) (McLaughlin and Rasmussen, 1998: 289). Similarly, Rasmussen et al., (2000: 58) found that only 47.4 percent of part-time employees received a pay increase in the first 12 months of employment.
More alarming findings come from a study of wage data from award agreements prior to 1991 and supermarket contracts up until 1997. In this study Conway (1998), found that there had been significant decreases in real wages and that the ECA had been one of several major causes of these decreases. For example, seven years after the ECA had been introduced, commencement (starting) rates (adjusted for inflation, penal rates and allowances, etc.) had decreased by 36.3 percent for part-time adults and 18.2 percent for full-time adults.
The disappearance of penal rates combined with the stagnation of basic wage rates in the secondary labour market under the ECA served to further depress the living standards of retail workers who have traditionally made up the lowest paid sector of the New Zealand’s labour force. Mitsuhashi (1999) presents a demonstrable trend of increasing disparity between the average wage in the retail industry and the national average wage. The disparity was, -28.5 per cent in 1983, -30.7 per cent in 1991 and -32.8 per cent in 1995 (Mitsuhashi, 1999: cited in Conway 1998: 68). So there was an increase in disparity during the period of general market liberalisation prior to the introduction of the ECA, and this trend seems to have intensified after 1991.
Statistics regarding wage levels in the Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants sector, and the Retail sector provided by Statistics New Zealand corroborate Mitsuhashi’s findings of a decline in income for workers in the secondary labour market relative to the working population as a whole during the neoliberal period.
(Source: Statistics New Zealand, 2005: 78)
This rapid increase in wage inequality during the neoliberal period is indicative evidence of increased labour market segmentation and seems to confirm the hypothesis in chapter 1, that labour market segmentation is accelerated by labour market liberalisation. Supporting this point is a study by O’Dea (2000: 12) who found … about 60 percent of the increase in income inequality among the employed over the period 1986 to 1996 to be accounted for by shifts in labour force composition and by widening income differentials by occupation, education, industry and age.
It has also been argued that the wage decrease in the secondary labour market since the introduction of the ECA has lead to increases in income inequality and poverty. For example, McLaughlin (1999) found that of the 148 retail workers represented in his survey, 17 percent lived in households where the income was below the poverty line (below 50 percent of average household expenditure). It was further found that 86 percent lived in households where the income was below average household expenditure. These findings bring in to question the claims of the NZBR, who have insisted that low pay is not an important social issue as low-paid workers tend to be second income earners in middle and upper-income households (NZBR 1990, cited in McLaughlin 1998:9).
October 18th, 2007 at 9:25 am
I would like to see the figures recalculated for the mean rather than the average wage. I also wonder how they calculate ordinary time wages for salaried workers. MPs would be an example.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Tane: That’s why industrial relations is such a big deal for them – because they know that with the right IR regime they can screw down wages and conditions.
Oh dear, did Tane just trot out the “employers are baby eating capitalist” analogy? You’d swear it’s 1780 and all employers are resorting to underpaid child labour.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:31 am
ghostwhowalks – where was my lie? You agreed with me!
October 18th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Inventory2: No, I think you are missing the point. Labour views the taxes at the higher level as a redistribution mechanism. Nothing to do with spending your money for your benefit.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:34 am
“Oh dear, did Tane just trot out the “employers are baby eating capitalist” analogy? You’d swear it’s 1780 and all employers are resorting to underpaid child labour.”
Pascal –
The New Zealand Employers Federation (NZEF) and the New Zealand Business Roundtable were the two principal lobbying groups that contributed to the formation of the Employment Contracts Act. Although the NZBR claims to represent an objective and national perspective and not a partisan business perspective, it cites only New Right sources and espouses only New Right philosophy. As such, the NZBR believes both in the instrumental and absolute value of the market, the need to minimise the role of government in society, and the need to weaken the power of unions, both of which ‘distort markets’, making them less efficient. The NZEF on the other hand tends to be more moderate in terms of its economic and social philosophies as it represents both small and large business owners. For instance, in 1986 the NZBR made a public submission on industrial relations in which it took a much harder anti-union line than the Employers Federation (Mulgan, 1989: 124). However, these differences didn’t stop the NZEF and the NZBR from acting in a coordinated way in their campaigns for labour legislation reform throughout the mid to late 1980s (Danin, 1997: 22).
October 18th, 2007 at 9:34 am
No Pascal, I’m simply pointing out that to a business workers are just a labour cost. They’re no different in kind to the phone bill, power bills or mortgage payments – you want to keep them down as low as possible. This isn’t some conspiracy theory, it’s basic economics.
Neither is it controversial that employers organise through groups like the EMA, Business NZ, the BRT and Federated Farmers to keep wages and other costs down. The EMA, for example, explicitly helps employers keep pay rates as low as possible and provides professional advocates to help with wage negotiations. Business NZ plays a strong lobbying role against worker-friendly legislation. And these groups ultimately find their political expression through the National Party. Again, this isn’t a controversial analysis. I’m surprised you weren’t aware of it.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Thanks for that Mark – so that endorses what I was saying to Tane earlier: “Very predictable Tane – the socialist “Robin Hood” mantra – take from the rich and give to the poor.” That would be great, except that in spending my money for me, the government is definitely NOT taking from the rich!
October 18th, 2007 at 9:39 am
“Inventory2 ”
Have you not read my comments?
October 18th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Inventory – That might read better as ‘Take from the poor and give to the poverty-stricken’, for accuracy’s sake.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:41 am
<i>[DPF: I take that as an acknowledgement that you no longer claim workers got paid less under National. </i>
DPF, I'm stunned by your continuing dishonesty on this. I've said it before and I'll say it again - wage growth has been higher under Labour than it was under National. That's a fact.
[DPF: But not real wage growth. The fact is the amount of money a worker has to spend on rent, food, power, car etc increased three times as much in the 1990s than since 1999. If you really want to argue gross nominal wages are more important than net real wages, I suggest you go onto some factory floors and explain to them how a 4% pay rise with 4% inflation is better than a 3% pay rise with no inflation.]
October 18th, 2007 at 9:42 am
The figures are lovely, David and make me pine for 1994. However, as soon as I do that, I remember it and I remember being a shitload worse off then tham I am now. Even after maintenance payments and so on, I have much more disposable income now than I had in, say, 1997. So while on paper it looks like the glory days of the ECA and Jim ‘n’ Jenny were truly idyllic, it’s people’s memories that need to be erased before trying to sell that particular line. Lives aren’t lived on paper, they are lived between paydays for many and more people are more secure between paydays now than they were in the 90s, I would suggest.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Tane: No Pascal, I’m simply pointing out that to a business workers are just a labour cost. They’re no different in kind to the phone bill, power bills or mortgage payments – you want to keep them down as low as possible. This isn’t some conspiracy theory, it’s basic economics.
Well Tane, by the same token – if your phone bill gets upset with the way you treat it it certainly does not hand in it’s resignation and move on to other employment opportunities. It also doesn’t cost you the loss in training and familiarity.
I think if you’re actually honest you’ll find that the majority of employers realize the value of their staff and will pay them what they are worth.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Thank you roger for that enlightening discourse on the NZEF and NZBR. When you stop living in the 1990s, please carry on quoting largely irrelevant things in the hope of sounding intelligent and making a point.
Seriously. You are looking at a 10 year old document that discusses events of some 20 odd years ago.
Parties, policies, people and nations change.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:48 am
roger nome said “Inventory2 ”
Have you not read my comments?”
roger, I’m having trouble sleeping lately, so I’ve printed your comments out and put them on my bedside table – I’m sure they’ll do the trick!!!
October 18th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Pascal, the reason the phone bill doesn’t do that is because it’s not a human being with a family to support. That’s why thinking of human beings as merely a ‘labour cost’ – a commodity to be bought and sold – is so repugnant.
the majority of employers realize the value of their staff and will pay them what they are worth.
No, employers will generally pay their workers what they can get away with paying them. Unless you think Telecom’s workers are worth less than 1% of their CEO?
October 18th, 2007 at 9:54 am
tane longs for the day when CEO’s and union-member graduates are paid identically. after all, they’re both humans. the both breathe the same air. why should they be paid differently?
October 18th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Thank you roger for that enlightening discourse on the NZEF and NZBR. When you stop living in the 1990s, please carry on quoting largely irrelevant things
Pascal, as my response to you pointed out, business lobby groups still exist, they still want the same things, and they still have major influence on the National Party. There’s nothing irrelevant about it.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:59 am
“That’s why thinking of human beings as merely a ‘labour cost’ – a commodity to be bought and sold – is so repugnant.”
Why is it repugnant? As an individual you are selling your labour input on a market place, the wage is the price for the labour input. I’m not sure how else we should analyse the labour market.
“No, employers will generally pay their workers what they can get away with paying them.”
I’m confused, why can’t an employer be self-interested when employees and households are allowed to make decisions in a self-interested manner. It is not immoral for a firm to act in its own self-interest. If there is a market failure then the government should step in, sure, but is there a market failure in the labour market? Does the wage that firms pay represent the full social costs and benefits of the labour transaction? That seems to be the point you are all arguing about, and ultimately you will never agree with each other as you have different beliefs.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:00 am
“The median data for all NZers aged 15 and up includes a 16 year old working 10 hours a week. The debate is about adults who are working FT to support themselves and/or their partner”
Why? What gives you the right to define the youth as unimportant David? And don’t give me that “they don’t pay the bills” line – because most working 15 year olds live in below average income homes to supplement their parents income – so they are paying the bills.
[DPF: Can you provide proof for that assertion? When I was 15 almost all my friends had a part-time job, and none of them were giving it to their parents.]
October 18th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Tane: Pascal, the reason the phone bill doesn’t do that is because it’s not a human being with a family to support.
Yes dear, that is the point I was trying to make to *you*. I realize it’s a lovely world where you can imagine employers only count their employees as “labour costs”, but in reality there is a lot more behind it.
Putting it to you simply.
We have a labour shortage in this country. This is reflected on the immigration website down to Hairdressers.
What does that mean? If your employer is paying you “what he can get away with” you will find an employer that will value your skills more and will pay you more.
Simple fact. Employers in your “national bogeyman” days might have done as you alledge, but this 2007. Most employers understand that there is a training and investment in employees and that paying them a good wage is essential to retaining their services.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:01 am
“Parties, policies, people and nations change.”
Are you trying to tell me that the NZBR’s stance on Industrial Relations have changed in the last 20 years? More fool you inventory.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Interesting post DPF. A number of people have asked you to post with the median wage rather than the mean wage as the basis of your calculations. That is a very fair request given that the mean, the median, and the mode, will only be the same under a normal distribution curve. It would also be interesting if you could post a table of the salary bands, with the population percentages relating to those bands, and show your calculations inflation thereto. I don’t know how feasible it is for you to do that. You may in the interim though be able to answer these questions:
[DPF: I am trying to dig up some further data from Stats NZ. However this will take a while as I do have two FT jobs at the moment.]
1 Were salary and wages normally distributed in each of 1990, 1999, and 2007?
[DPF: Off memory salaries and wages are never normally distributed]
2 If so; how what happened to the ranges for those years;
[DPF: That would require access to the source data for Stats NZ probably. I don't think their summaries can tell us that. Will check though]
3 If not; what were the distributions and why did you chose to use the mean for your thread when that is inappropriate in such circumstances?
[DPF: I used the mean as that is the data publicly available. Checks the Stats NZ website out if you do not believe me]
Also are you able to provide the real changes in the Stock Market and Property Market for those periods?
[DPF: No. But don't let me stop you doing so - I suggest you ask NZX for the former.]
My suspicion is that those figures would show that the rates of return to capital have been increasing much faster than the rates of return to labour (not that I would presume to suggest a causative link there) but it would rather make the increases in wages look even more paltry.
Apologies if I ask for too much.
[DPF: As capital has far higher risk than labour, then of course return on capital is higher. If it were not, there would be no jobs as no one would invest in businesses]
October 18th, 2007 at 10:04 am
roger nome: Are you trying to tell me that the NZBR’s stance on Industrial Relations have changed in the last 20 years? More fool you inventory.
[sighs] Roger, for an “intellectual” you sure as hell don’t know how to quote or how to spell most days. It makes me wonder how much of what you post you actually understand.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:04 am
“Why? What gives you the right to define the youth as unimportant David? And don’t give me that “they don’t pay the bills” line – because most working 15 year olds live in below average income homes to supplement their parents income – so they are paying the bills.”
Now that’s something I’d like to see some proof of.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:07 am
krazykiwi: tane longs for the day when CEO’s and union-member graduates are paid identically
It seems so. I could try to explain risk, reward, compare working hours and so forth, but I’m afraid Tane’s image of an employer is somebody who sits in a big office, smoking cigars and counting money. Not much you can discuss with somebody that rooted in ideology and lies really.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Matt, note the word ‘merely’. My issue is with those who view workers as nothing more than a cost to drive down, and the position taken by the business press that ‘wage inflation’ or rising ‘labour costs’ are by definition a bad thing, forgetting that what’s actually being discussed is the money people earn to feed their families.
I’m also not saying employers are immoral to be self-interested. I’m simply pointing that out to those on this site who argue little or no regulation is needed because employers are lovely guys who just want to help their workers.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:08 am
“Why? What gives you the right to define the youth as unimportant David?”
I seem to have missed the part where DPF said that. Could you please point me to it?
Or is your inability to disprove DPF’s conclusions causing you to tell porkies again Mr Nome?
October 18th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Tane said employers will generally pay their workers what they can get away with paying them. Unless you think Telecom’s workers are worth less than 1% of their CEO?
Tane, maybe shareholders are prepared to pay Telecom’s CEO as much as they do because he is able to generate a massive amount of wealth for them. Do you really think that shareholders are dumb? That they’d agree to pay over-the-odds because Paul Reynolds has a charming smile? Wake up. Reality is that Telecom’s CEO’s decisions will make-or-break billions of dollars of shareholder wealth. In that context paying $5m to get the right guy is pretty rational.
And yes, that probably does mean he’s worth 100x what many of Telecom’s workers are worth – to Telecom’s shareholders. I’ll repeat a simple analogy I used with Sam Dixon the other day:
Who would you want to operate on your heart? I trained surgeon earning $900,000 pa? Or thirty labourers who earn $30,000 each???? Yeah, thought so.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:10 am
the socialist “Robin Hood” mantra – take from the rich and give to the poor
I love it when right-wingers talk about Robin Hood as a socialist who stole from the rich and gave to the poor. You might like to actually read Robin Hood before making such claims.
For you viewing pleasure:
Then they vowed that even as they themselves had been despoiled they would despoil their oppressors, whether baron, abbot, knight, or squire, and that from each they would take that which had been wrung from the poor by unjust taxes, or land rents, or in wrongful fines. But to the poor folk they would give a helping hand in need and trouble, and would return to them that which had been unjustly taken from them.
Hmm, interesting.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Matt Nolan
It is repugnant to think of people solely as a labour cost because people are endowed with certain inalienable rights and are an end in themselves. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with applying market analysis to labour supply but markets exist for the benefit of society not the other way around. I would have thought it entirely possible for a slave market to be stable but that would not make it moral. Similarly I would imagine it possible for a labour market to operate in which a vast number of workers made only enough to subsist while a few enjoyed ostentatious wealth. That would also not be morally right and would be an unfair market as the susbsitence workers would have no bargaining power (at least not within the legal confines or rules of the market – in reality they would have “extralegal” options available to them sucvh as changing the rules of the market).
October 18th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Tane: Matt, note the word ‘merely’. My issue is with those who view workers as nothing more than a cost to drive down, and the position taken by the business press that ‘wage inflation’ or rising ‘labour costs’ are by definition a bad thing, forgetting that what’s actually being discussed is the money people earn to feed their families.
Thus far you are the only one who has made that type of comparison, Tane. Everyone else seems to be about employees getting their fair share both from their employers and the government.
After seeing your blatant hypocracy about the election overspend by Labour, I’m beginning to wonder if the very issues you campaign against aren’t curious reflections of your own views.
It certainly seems as if you believe the worst of everyone except Labour party supporters
October 18th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Tane said. “I’m simply pointing that out to those on this site who argue little or no regulation is needed because employers are lovely guys who just want to help their workers.”
Acknowledging that a moderate approach is the way to go is the most reasonable thing I’ve ever heard you say Tane.
Yeah it’s tough working out the ideal balance here. I know that many and perhaps most employers have a good positive attitude towards staff and want to look after them well.
Then again, I have a friend who worked for the ACT party president, and no way on earth would you trust that guy in a deregulated employment environment.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:13 am
you will find an employer that will value your skills more and will pay you more.
Unless you work in an industry that has chronic low pay and no means to bargain on an industry-wide basis to improve those conditions. Labour doesn’t skip between countries as easily as your economic theories might suggest.
tane longs for the day when CEO’s and union-member graduates are paid identically
I’ve actually been an employer. Close family members of mine are employers. And I don’t think a CEO should be paid the same as the average worker for the reasons you outlined. But there comes a point where the inequality in incomes is so obscene that it’s clear the playing field is skewed and needs fixing. Judging by the situation at Telecom, I think we’ve reached that point.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Tane cracked a funny … Running a Ministry, $500k. Running a telephone company, $5m. Roughly equivalent jobs with roughly equivalent responsibilities. One gets paid ten times the other. So what’s this about public service extravagance?
Tane, I suspect you’ve not ever had to run a private sector company. Peter Hughes doesn’t have to compete for revenue or market share. He doesn’t have shareholders expecting wealth creation. He doesn’t seem to be held to particularly rigourous performance achievement. His biggest career risk is that he’ll cross his Minister by not kow-towing to the party line.
Paul Reynolds has to grow Telecom’s revenues in a tough regulatory environment. He has to deliver at least 12% growth in value year-on-year or else shareholders will dump him. And he has to face a lot more public scrutiny while doing so.
Trust me, I’m sure that no private sector organisation has ever considered paying Peter Hughes $5m a year.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Herein lies the philosophical delta in respect of the left vs right attitude to employment:
Left: Businesses are their primarily to provide employment and income for union members. These folks may need to work to entitle them to such income.
Right: Businesses exist primarily to deliver products/services that can generate an income for shareholders. Employment may need to be offered to achieve this.
left vs right arguments will always end in tears because the basic presuppositions are different.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Tane’s a really funny guy!
October 18th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Chuck Bird – I don’t like to be mean, but mean and average are the same thing, I think its median you are thinking of,
Matt Nolan – there’s nothing ‘wrong’ with an employer being self-interested and paying as little as they can get away with but, knowing this, if we want a society where those with low or more common skills are not exploited by those who control the means of production but rahter given fair reward for their production then we obivously need regulatory intervention. Which I ‘m sure you agree with.
I think people object to being labelled ‘labour costs’ because the economy is the means by which we build and exchange human wealth – it exists for us, not we for it. ‘Labour costs’ reduces human beings to cogs in a machine.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Virtualmark, I think you are on shaky ground when you seek to argue that senior executive remuneration can be justified by reference to the size and value of the entity in question which they head and imply that these senior executives make decisions on their own without massive support teams. Don’t you think it is a valid point to make that the difference at say a medium to large company between the average worker’s wage today and the average CEO’s is far greater than say 30 years ago? It seems to me that however high a remuneration package a CEO is getting you would argue that it is justifed by virtue of the fact of its own existence. Not a bad argument I suppose as it also serves to justify whatever (lower) wage the shop floor worker is getting too!
October 18th, 2007 at 10:23 am
“It is repugnant to think of people solely as a labour cost because people are endowed with certain inalienable rights and are an end in themselves.”
This and the social values that people apply to labour are based on our beliefs, and these are the externalities associated with labour market activity that some type of government intervention could be justified on.
The difficultly is that these values are subjective. We agree that a employers and employees are self-interested and we agree that with no government intervention a certain market wage would be set. However, everyone is debating issues of value, subjective issues that depend on what you believe is fair.
I don’t think that treating labour input as a resource is repugnant, as it represents a good that someone is selling, it doesn’t represent the person as a whole. I think a clearer way of looking at the issue is to treat the income of a person separately from the amount they sell their labour input for. If the government insures people a minimum income (as it does on the benefit) I don’t see any reason to restrict the labour market, given that the employer and the employee both have choices (whether to hire and whether to sell).
October 18th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Helmet:
““Why? What gives you the right to define the youth as unimportant David? And don’t give me that “they don’t pay the bills” line – because most working 15 year olds live in below average income homes to supplement their parents income – so they are paying the bills.”
Now that’s something I’d like to see some proof of.”
I don’t have the exact figures on hand, but i have seen figures that prove my assertion. Any way, here’s some good indicative evidence. You will concede that most working 15 year olds work in retail or a similarly low-skilled sector. In fact, the retail sector is one the youngest job sectors. Anyway ….
“McLaughlin (1999) found that of the 148 retail workers represented in his survey, 17 percent lived in households where the income was below the poverty line (below 50 percent of average household expenditure). It was further found that 86 percent lived in households where the income was below average household expenditure.”
So if the younger workers follow this demographic trend, and there’s no reason to think that they don’t. This is a good indication that most working teenagers live in household with a below average income.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:26 am
“‘Labour costs’ reduces human beings to cogs in a machine.”
No, labour is something that the individual sells. The labour input is like a ‘cog in a machine’, but there is more to an individual than just work.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Tane: Unless you work in an industry that has chronic low pay and no means to bargain on an industry-wide basis to improve those conditions. Labour doesn’t skip between countries as easily as your economic theories might suggest.
What has countries got to do with it? We’re talking about the New Zealand domestic market here Tane, stay focussed.
There are a few items you need to consider.
Even between employers in a given industry there is some leeway in terms of earning capacity within a realistic bracket for the level of skill, knowledge and experience required to perform that job. There are other tradeoffs that employers will be willing to make, to aid work and life balance.
Secondly, in New Zealand and even across the years – how many industries are caught in such a situation and what percentage of the population do they represent?
Now come and argue that making the first $20,000 of their income tax free would not greatly benefit that very group you are talking about.
This is all basic management stuff – surely somebody with your illustrious credentials should know this?
Sam Dixon: ‘Labour costs’ reduces human beings to cogs in a machine.
Hey, that was Tane’s idea! Don’t blame any of us.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:28 am
krazykiwi – on diferences between left and right, close-ish.
You’re correct that the right believes the point of the economy is to serve the interests of thsoe who control the means of production (shareholders, the capitalists).
The left sees that the power disparity between those who control the means of production and those who don’t will always lead to the exploitation of those who have not by those who have, and sees this as an injustice. A person needs income, they need a share of society’s wealth to survive on, so they must work to get that income, they are therefore at the mercy of those who control access to work, who control the means of production, who will only give the worker as little income in return for labour as market conditions will allow.
A central role of the State, then, is to intervene in this inherently unequal relationship and help ensure that labour is rewarded more fairly – labour laws, minium wage, annual leave etc. The State also provides social services that can be seen as forms of collective insurance – health, benefits, courts, police etc – and serve to improve economic outcomes – the State supplies the capitalists with a better educated, healthier workforce than would be the case with free and universerial access to them, and it provides servives to reduce civil disorder – police, benefits, courts – thereby protecting the wealth of those who have it.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Roger Nome: So if the younger workers follow this demographic trend, and there’s no reason to think that they don’t. This is a good indication that most working teenagers live in household with a below average income.
A 148? A sample of 148? Are you seriously considering a sample of 148 workers in 1999 to be a representative sample that will accurately indicate trends and circumstances?
*facepalm*
October 18th, 2007 at 10:29 am
I despair that the Nats cannot rise to their own defense and produce these sort of stats. It took Fran OSullivan to put their cock ups a few weeks ago in perspective and this time DPF to ride to the rescue. Labour have been getting away with one line cliches for years that perpetuate the urban legends they would have you believe. Wake up you dozey bastards (Nats) and start acting like you want the job. I hate to bring up Aussie but …
October 18th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Matt Nolan – yes there’s more to the individual than work but the ability of a perosn to live a fulfilling, healthy, long live and ensure good lives for their children is linked to their income. When we consider their work as just a cog in the machine then the natural emphasis is on reducing the price of the cog for the work it does. This ignores the prupose for which the person needs that income, why they are working in the first place.
A real cog doesn’t have a live to live, it is merely a tool, supply it cheaper, great, a human is more than that.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Sonic: If you want to argue that NZ employers are a bunch of money grabbing, profit obsessed, low paying exploiters, I’m happy to agree.
Very revealing.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Just to add to the correspondence. The major difference in additional govt spending support is the working for families package.
If you are a 30 something single person working in a plant then DPFs analysis is about right.
If you are a married 30 something with kids then the analysis needs to take into account the following 3 policies that are paid under tax and spend introduced by the Reds:
- free kids health care
- Working for families
- Accom supplements
(I am sure there are more)
With two young kids on an ‘average’ income these are worth more than $100 per week.
Re the surplus Tane, $24,000 per household buys alot of services…
Though you can be sure that given my income Mr Cullen is more likely to give my share to someone else who is more deserving, maybe he’ll buy them a house paid for by my taxes, and you know who will they thank not me, but Aunty Helen. I personally paid over $100k in taxes last year, which means I supported about 10 people on the dole. Gee that sounds fair…I grew up in a poor household and I would rather have my money back and give it to my less fortunate family members directly thanks.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:34 am
I didn’t say that at all. You introduced this idea to frame up your following comments.
Bingo. There is only so much wealth and it must be distributed equally. Socialist thinking. It still has a place in one or two countries, but not here in NZ
October 18th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Matt Nolan,
Fair enough. That then reduces the argument down to one of what minimum income level the state should “insure” at. I can live with an argument that is conducted around that idea (i.e. that there should be some minimum level set).
October 18th, 2007 at 10:38 am
“A 148? A sample of 148? Are you seriously considering a sample of 148 workers in 1999 to be a representative sample that will accurately indicate trends and circumstances?”
It was a random sample – so yes, why wouldn’t it be of some indicative value?
October 18th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Sam Dixon said “yes there’s more to the individual than work but the ability of a perosn to live a fulfilling, healthy, long live and ensure good lives for their children is linked to their income.”
Thanks for that Sam. I’ll try and remember the bit about there “being more to the individual than work” when I’m still working at midnight tonight, and I resume at around 7.30am tomorrow morning – unfortunately, those of us who choose to be self-employed or employers tend to forget that there is anything more to life than work!
October 18th, 2007 at 10:39 am
<i>I personally paid over $100k in taxes last year</i>
Y’know, it’s amazing how many Kiwiblog commenters paid taxes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars last year. No wonder there’s such anger over taxes here – you’re a pack of grumpy businessmen mired in a grievance culture. You’re among the top 1 or 2% of the population, yet somehow feel you’re being hard done by. Astonishing.
[DPF: Tane - exactly how many commenters here pay that much in tax? Please tell me]
October 18th, 2007 at 10:42 am
What statistical method did they use to select their random sample Roger? What was the margin of error? Have you checked any of that to see if the sample is actually representative?
October 18th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Hi Sam.
The purpose of reducing a persons labour input down to being like a “cog in the machine” is because thats what it is, and that is how businesses will treat it. Once figure out how the labour market functions in this way we can ask ourselves whether the social outcomes it provides are sensible. If we don’t believe income is being distributed fairly we can redistribute it etc.
However, the only way to look at the labour market objectively is to look at labour in a functional sort of way. Once we can do this, the only thing that differs between everyone here is our values, what we think is equitable, what we think is moral. That is where government action comes in.
This is important, as, if people values are different, they are not going to agree, no matter how much everyone here debates it.
RossK, they have been doing work at Treasury on a minimum income type thing. It was closed off when Labour came into government as they wanted to focus more on targeted assistance. However, I’m sure it will make the rounds again
October 18th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Inventory2, I was the one who initially said that their was more to life than work, so you shouldn’t just try to bag Sam for it. The point is that the labour input you sell and the person you are can be separated, I work long hours to, but working is still a ‘choice’.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:51 am
DPF:
It seems that statistics NZ only started reporting median wage levels in 1997 – so to get the 1991-1996 figures they require you to pay. Bugger.
I’m sure you can afford those figures much more readily than I can David
[DPF: Not at all. You can claim it is part of your course costs and stick it on the student loan
]
October 18th, 2007 at 10:51 am
The margin of error for a sample size of 148 assuming 95% confidence is +/- 8%. Or if you want 99% confidence, then +/- 10%.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:00 am
As others have pointed out the increase in employment participation is going to skew the average wage towards lower, meaning these figures mean nothing other than falsely make Natinal look better than labour which is what the intension was. . A true indication of wage increases would be to randomly select industries and track the wages of say builders. factory workers, nurses etc. Guarantee National would not look so hot.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Also – Auckland university seems to have median wage figures that go back a fair distance – but you have to have an account with them to get access.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Cheers Matt – consider yourself acknowledged.
I’m glad that working long hours is a “choice” for you. For my wife and I, it is more of a necessity. We accept the reality of the situation, and know that it won’t always be like that, but our service is in a major growth phase, and we have to put the time and effort in now. Neither of us is getting fat in terms of the income we take – in fact if the hours we do were taken into account, the hourly rate wouldn’t be much more than the minimum wage! And I can assure Tane that I am NOT one of the Kiwibloggers paying $100k pa in tax! If only!!!
October 18th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Personal income by age (from Census 2006) (relative proportions not shown)
http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2006-census-data/quickstats-about-incomes/quickstats-about-incomes.htm?page=para011Master
Personal income by age, comparison 2001 and 2006 (from Census 2006) relative proportions shown)
http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2006-census-data/quickstats-about-incomes/quickstats-about-incomes.htm?page=para002Master
Also from the link immediately above
Personal income
Total personal income
Median personal income increased
The median annual personal income from all sources for people who were aged 15 years and over and living in New Zealand on census night was:
· $24,400 in 2006
· $18,500 in 2001
· $15,600 in 1996.
Median income means half receive more, and half receive less, than this amount.
Therefore, the median annual personal income from all sources increased:
· 32 percent in the five years from 2001 to 2006
· 56 percent in the 10 years from 1996 to 2006.
Income increased more than the price of goods and services
The increase in the median annual income has been greater than the increase in the price of goods and services, as measured by the Consumers Price Index (CPI). The CPI increased:
· 13 percent in the five years from 2001 to 2006
· 22 percent in the 10 years from 1996 to 2006.
Biggest changes in income bands
Proportionately, the income band with the biggest increase between 2001 and 2006 was the $50,001–$70,000 band:
· In 2006, nearly 10 percent of people aged 15 years and over received income between $50,001 and $70,000
· In 2001, 6 percent of people were in this income band.
The biggest decrease was for the $5,001–$10,000 income band:
· In 2006, 8 percent of people aged 15 years and over received income between $5,001 and $10,000
· In 2001, 13 percent of people were in this income band.
Here is a statistics NZ link for the February 1999 Statistics New Zealand published report “Incomes”, a report tracing changes in the distribution of New Zealanders’ incomes from 1982 to 1996, “one of the most eventful periods in our economic history”.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/Articles/income-distrib-May99.htm
October 18th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Hi Inventory2,
It is still a choice. It is possible to not work and beg on the street for example, however you choose to work the long hours instead of doing that. Your opportunity cost from your current job is your next best alternative job, and that acts as your reservation level. In order to choose different work it must be better than your opportunity cost. However, it is still a choice
October 18th, 2007 at 11:17 am
The median annual personal income from all sources for people who were aged 15 years and over and living in New Zealand on census night was:
· $24,400 in 2006
· $18,500 in 2001
· $15,600 in 1996.
Median income means half receive more, and half receive less, than this amount.
Therefore, the median annual personal income from all sources increased:
· 32 percent in the five years from 2001 to 2006
· 56 percent in the 10 years from 1996 to 2006.
Income increased more than the price of goods and services
The increase in the median annual income has been greater than the increase in the price of goods and services, as measured by the Consumers Price Index (CPI). The CPI increased:
· 13 percent in the five years from 2001 to 2006
· 22 percent in the 10 years from 1996 to 2006.
Biggest changes in income bands
Proportionately, the income band with the biggest increase between 2001 and 2006 was the $50,001–$70,000 band:
· In 2006, nearly 10 percent of people aged 15 years and over received income between $50,001 and $70,000
· In 2001, 6 percent of people were in this income band.
The biggest decrease was for the $5,001–$10,000 income band:
· In 2006, 8 percent of people aged 15 years and over received income between $5,001 and $10,000
· In 2001, 13 percent of people were in this income band.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Come on Inventory2… the ‘if only’ statement tars you forever as someone who is working hard to improve your lot. That’s filthy capitalistic thinking which must be purged from your psyche by a large, if unpalatable, dose of socialists’ medicine. That medicine would soon have you sitting back, relaxing and being ‘taken care of’ by the unions and the state.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:18 am
forgot the
October 18th, 2007 at 11:19 am
True Jaz – there was an increase in low-wage, part time work in the 1990s. i.e. from 1990 to 199 the percentage of the work force employed on a part-time basis went from 19% to 24%.
Also – the average wage in the retail industry increased by just 11% between 1990 and 1997 while the increase between 1999 and 2006 was 22%. The retail sector represents the vast majority of low wage, part-time work in New Zealand (in fact retail is about 20% of the work force). So it can be reasonable said that wage increases for lower income workers have been twice as good under Labor as they were under National. Again, this shows that the average wage under National was dragged by massive increases in wages for the richest workers – so it’s not really representative of an increase in remuneration levels for low to middle income workers.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:20 am
DPF: I only had data for average earnings. But feel free to send me the median data, and I will adjust it for tax and CPI and post it. But I want data for FT adults. The median data for all NZers aged 15 and up includes a 16 year old working 10 hours a week. The debate is about adults who are working FT to support themselves and/or their partner.
One of the benefits of using the median is that it’s robust to outliers. Any effect on the median of including young people will be small, especially if you’re looking at differences.
Tane is dreaming if he thinks the use of median rather than mean would significantly dent the huge difference.
You’re dreaming (or lying) if you think it won’t.
My analysis is more aimed at debunking the claims that the average worker did horribly in the 1990s in terms of pay.
When people say “average worker”, they’re using fuzzy english, not precise statistical jargon. They almost certainly mean “typical” rather than “mean”.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:23 am
(Any chance of adding a preview feature?)
One of the benefits of using the median is that it’s robust to outliers. Any effect on the median of including young people will be small, especially if you’re looking at differences.
You’re dreaming (or lying) if you think it won’t.
When people say “average worker”, they’re using fuzzy english, not precise statistical jargon. They almost certainly mean “typical” rather than “mean”.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:30 am
“So it can be reasonable said that wage increases for lower income workers have been twice as good under Labor as they were under National”
Obviously this reflects the large minimum wage increases under Labour and the pathetically low minimum wage increases under National
This is from some work I’ve done previously.
“the statutory minimum wage for adults was increased to $7.55 in 2000 and youth minimum rates increased to $4.55 (Rasmussen and Beer, 2000a: 105). Furthermore, the age of eligibility for the statutory minimum wage was reduced from 20 to 18 years in December 2000 (Rasmussen and McIntosh, 2001b: 138).Young workers received another increase in March 2002, when the statutory minimum wage for 16 and 17 year olds went up to $6.40 an hour while the adult minimum wage increased to $8.40 per hour (ibid., 2002: 143). On the whole increases in the adult minimum wage have been far more substantial under Labour in comparison to the preceding National government. For instance, between the years of 1999 and 2005 the minimum wage underwent an increase of 36 percent, while during the 10 years National was in power, the minimum wage increased by a paltry 14 percent. So the minimum wage has increased at a rate of 5 per cent per annum under the Fifth Labour Government, while this figure was only 1.4 per cent under National during the 1990s.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:32 am
kk – sackcloth and ashes dutifully adopted for the rest of the day!
October 18th, 2007 at 11:34 am
October 18th, 2007 at 11:38 am
DPF – here’s one for you – from this morning’s DomPost
“$94m salary cost blowout ‘an outrage’
By LANE NICHOLS – The Dominion Post | Thursday, 18 October 2007
A $94 million salary cost “blowout” at the Education Ministry has been labelled an outrage – as cash-strapped schools fighting deficits struggle to balance their books.
The National Party wants the Government to explain why combined ministry pay packets have skyrocketed by 154 per cent since 2002, while staff numbers have risen only 16 per cent.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4241418a7694.html
The article also says:
“The revelations are likely to embarrass officials, who The Dominion Post understands are tipped to announce a pay increase settlement with the 19,000 secondary teachers this week of just 4 per cent a year.
Figures released under the Official Information Act show taxpayers paid $155 million last financial year to 3348 ministry staff, up from $61 million to 2890 staff in 2002.
Since 2000, the number of ministry staff earning salaries of more than $100,000 has also ballooned – from 27 to 142.
Wellington College headmaster Roger Moses said 23 members of the “rapidly growing bureaucracy” were now earning between $150,000 and $300,000 – well in excess of all the 420 secondary school principals, who earn up to about $150,000.
“I’m absolutely staggered to see the salaries that are being offered. I’m not surprised that relatively few people are applying for principals’ positions but there doesn’t appear to be a shortage of applicants for positions in the ministry.
“It seems to me there is a significant growth in many education bureaucracies. I’m not always sure what direct benefit that growth has when it comes to individual schools.” ”
No doubt Sam and Tane will be able to find a way of spinning this!
October 18th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Roger, now adjust by inflation, etc. and run those numbers again. Do it in the same style that David did, so you can see how they reflect in reality.
Otherwise you could just as well argue that the minimum wage was $0 in 1900 (pulled out of my hat, not to be construed as a precise or accurate figure) and that the current represents a massive % increase under the wondrous ministrations of the Labour government, all hail Helen.
But you won’t
October 18th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Anyone who posts figures which are not adjusted for both tax and inflation is wasting our time.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:51 am
What about figures based on the mean not the median?
October 18th, 2007 at 11:55 am
For goodness sake: Employers don’t pay employees “what they can get away with”. Employers consider the cost of an employee, and assess how many employees, of whatever cost, are useful in increasing the profitability of the business. Ie – if they need to pay more, then as long as that increase in pay (through the market, or increased productivity) will actually increase the profitability, then it is a sound economic decision. Firing people to get cheaper labour is not a good move, because employers also recognise that experience and need to train new people is also a cost to the business.
My firm is short of labour, and finidng it difficult to recruit in the market. As a result, not only have salary increases been ahead of inflation, in addition the employees have been given retainers. Not really the sort of behaviour that you’d expect of baby-eaters, and, shock horror – its a non-unionised workforce. Go figure….
October 18th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Hey look! We’re back in the top-half of the OECD!
October 18th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Spam, yes you are right.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
“Anyone who posts figures which are not adjusted for both tax and inflation is wasting our time.”
Low income workers don’t pay a higher tax rate now than they did under National.
The average wage for low income workers increased twice as fast under labour.
How much high was the CPI rate increase between 1990 and 1997? And how much was it between 1999 and 2006? Surely the rate increase in the later period wasn’t so much higher as to negate the above fact (I don’t have the CPI figures).
[DPF: Good God - you're a post grad student and you can't locate CPI data. The sheer laziness of my critics. Noe a single one has yet posted their own data series. First of all you don't even define low income workers. How can one have an intelligent debate with you when you use slogans. I provided full data. Secondly you overlook that lower income workers pay more tax as they their gross income increases. And lastly for low income workers especially inflation adjustment is essential]
October 18th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
How much high was the CPI rate increase between 1990 and 1997? And how much was it between 1999 and 2006? Surely the rate increase in the later period wasn’t so much higher as to negate the above fact (I don’t have the CPI figures).
DPF does: From the post:
Now the CPI was 716 in 1990, 832 in 1999 and 1020 in 2007. So it was higher under Labour-tax ‘n’ spend-with-no-real-wage-growth-policies.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Tane – there is nothing wrong with having high incomes and paying taxes. I think i’ve paid nearly $1.5 m in personal taxes in my life and I am not yet 35, does that entitle me to question how it is being spent – it should. I am lucky to work in an area where I can choose to live in NZ and raise my family, as I would earn considerably more elsewhere. As DPF points out even those on low incomes are financially mad to stay here. I love my country and want to make it better and keep wealth creators here, governments don’t create wealth they distribute it. People should realise that we should work to encourage people to strive for higher incomes, get better educated, work hard and take on the world. There is nothing wrong with that. As there is nothing wrong with welfare perse or taxes even. What I am concerned about is the right to choose who I give my welfare to. I would rather make sure my wider family who are not as blessed as I in skill is looked after before someone I don’t know.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Tane / Sam, interested in you views on those ‘average’ workers at the MoE (ref Inv2’s post above)
October 18th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Bwaaaa….
Aust leads developed world in increase in personal wealth.
Note the massive growth in personal wealth due to the Aust. Super Scheme.
A NZ Super (read Pension) Scheme designed to ensure mass poverty… anyone?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4241270a6026.html
October 18th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Another thing to consider of course is the increasing wage disparity between low-income workers and other workers.
From 1990 to 1999 the average hourly wage rate in the retail industry went from being 76% of the average wage to 68%. Yet more evidence that the growth in average wage during the National government period came from large increases in the wages of wealthy workers.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Are only retail industry workers considered to be low-income workers, Roger?
October 18th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
You realise under the EFB rule next year you would be very limited in conveying this information to the public by paid advertising. Perhaps bloggers will come into their own.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Roger Nome bullshits again: “because most working 15 year olds live in below average income homes to supplement their parents income – so they are paying the bills.”
His proof? “I don’t have the exact figures on hand…..” classic. Can’t prove anything.
Somehow this proves something?: “McLaughlin (1999) found that of the 148 retail workers represented in his survey, 17 percent lived in households where the income was below the poverty line (below 50 percent of average household expenditure). It was further found that 86 percent lived in households where the income was below average household expenditure.”
This does not prove that their income goes on bills. Plus, the survey is about retail workers dumbass, not kids. How many of the survey sample were youth workers? Pathetic.
I suspect that in most cases it goes on cellphones, BK and clothing, but hey, go ahead, who needs proof anyway?
Twit.
October 18th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
“Are only retail industry workers considered to be low-income workers, Roger?”
They make up the vast bulk of those who are in the secondary labour market.
October 18th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Nome: can you pull the figures on generalised income inequality changes (ideally something that compares average to mean) in the relevant periods? That would show us whether there has been a material change in income inequality between the two periods that would suggest a distortion.
October 18th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
twit, dumbass etc …. hmmmm wonder why you have no significant other(s) helmet? Could it be because you’re an ass? I rather suspect so.
“His proof? “I don’t have the exact figures on hand…..” classic. Can’t prove anything.”
But I never advanced a proof – I advanced an indication.
“This does not prove that their income goes on bills. Plus, the survey is about retail workers dumbass, not kids. How many of the survey sample were youth workers? Pathetic. I suspect that in most cases it goes on cellphones, BK and clothing, but hey, go ahead, who needs proof anyway?”
So you suspect that their income goes on such necessities as food adn clothing – and celphones (the vast majority of adults have cell phones, so why shouldn’t the kids?
So thanks for proving my point
October 18th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Do you posters know whats scary ,
,The lack of skilled workers (trademan that actually know what they do),in New Zealand we have modern machines in our company , but two of our skilled workers have moved on.SCARY, There just isnt a pool of SKILLED workers in NZ , This might not interest the average trendy leftest keyboard tappers, but when your toilet backs up etc and theres not the skilled workers there to solve the problem,then,(the shit hits the fan)J
October 18th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
“because most working 15 year olds live in below average income homes to supplement their parents income – so they are paying the bills.”
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
The first part of this is an example of saying something so obvious it is retarded!
Your family can be too rich for you not to bother working at 15, but they cant be too poor for the same! So of course the working 15 year olds are more likely to come from BELOW AVERAGE income homes! It is a natural bias.
Whether they are paying the bills? Well that is just a HUGE assumption and cannot be backed up. UNSUBSTANTIATED TWADDLE!
October 18th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Fly in fly out Diesel Fitters on NW Shelf / Pilbara in demand.
AU$100k +.
Talking to Perth based individuals on recent NW Cape trip.
Guess you guys love the “average wage” concept…..or you wouldn’t crave it.
October 18th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Nome, If you think Bk, flash clothes and cellphones are necessities, I guess you won.
kerplunk.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
Oh YES, I just knew you’d pop up on this thread. Yet again you regurgitate your academic references, day in day out, and somehow you expect us to be impressed?
(1) You have repeatedly claimed that reality has a left-wing bias. So prove it. State your proposition succinctly and then give us your best evidence (not long-winded propaganda from dated academic references).
(2) You never seem to acknowledge the relative probity of your evidence – many of your references are years old (which might explain why you’re stuck in the “bad National in the 1990s” mindset).
You like evidence – so here it is:
Your long-winded 9.23 post clearly falls into this category.
And this from your 9.34 post:
Oh yes – let’s go back to 1989 and how dare the NZBR make a public submission? So what, you’d muzzle them, or will the EFB do the trick for you?!
And your 10.25 post is a classic – even by Phillip John standards:
So your claim is that most working 15 year olds live in below average homes, AND that they supplement their parents’ income? If (big if) we were to accept this assertion, is this slavery in your blue-sky world?
October 18th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Sam Dixon makes another good point:
“Also, this is only ordinary-time earnings – overtime makes up a greater portion of many workers’ income following the replacement of the ECA with the ERA.”
Penal rater/over-time rates largely disappeared during the ECA decade. Employers rationilsed this by offering larger increases in the base wage rate. Most of the time these weren’t substantial enough to offset the loss of penal rates.
As such – had David included overtime in his “average wage” data it would have looked significantly worse for National.
[DPF: I only had average earnings but have taken a look at overtime and it still leaves Labour well behind. Only adds $20 a week on, so even if overtime was zero under National, still behind. But again get me the overtime data series from 1985 and I'll post the figures.]
October 18th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
POC – nearly every quote you make is taken out of context and obfuscated. It would take me ages just to point these things out in detail, and little would be clarified as a result – conclusion ain’t worth my time sorry.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Maybe you should scrap your last analysis and replace it with median wage increase, inclusive of penal rates – bloody slimy little ………… man this deceptive BS pisses me off.
[DPF: No what pisses you off is that you can never again on this blog post about how awful the 1990s were for workers without scores of people jumping in and challenging you. You misleading use of gross nominal wages instead of net real wages has been exposed]
October 18th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
“Nome, If you think Bk, flash clothes and cellphones are necessities, I guess you won.”
They’re things that most adults have – why shouldn’t working children have them as well?
October 18th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
I fail to see how quoting your words back at you is taking them out of context. Weren’t your words intended to prove something?
October 18th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Running scared, Nome.
You are the Prince of “out of context”. Remember when you insisted that the EB pamphlet attacked the Greens AND Labour. And I pointed out that it, in fact, only mentions Labour as part of an attack on the Greens? You posted a single quote from the pamphlet which said that Labours environmental history is poor, completely ignoring the context of the attack on the Greens.
You have said that most 15 year olds work to help support their family. You implied that you had justification for that absurd statement. Haven’t seen it yet.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Why dont you do your own analysis, Nome you whiny fucktard?
DPF doesnt insult you, why do you have to be such a dick to him?
October 18th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
“Why dont you do your own analysis, Nome you whiny fucktard?”
Why don’t I?
I have – my analysis (inclusive of penal rates) shows average wage increasing by 3.3% per year under labour (2000-2006) and 2.1% under National (1991-1999). Of course you then have to adjust that for CPI and taxes, but already the situation is looking far less rosy for National (especially once you take into account worker friendly legislation like WFF, free child care, cheaper doctors visits etc…. )
[DPF: So go adjust for tax and CPI. And also give yourself 40 lashes for using average wage after howling and wailing about me using it. We see the intellectual bankruptcy here - it is okay to use average wage when it helps Roger's case, but wrong to use it when it does not]]
October 18th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Then of course I haven’t got access to median wage figures, which would doubtlessly make the situation look worse for National once again – all of a sudden DPF’s analysis is looking like an absolute crock.
[DPF: Well go get them. I'm trying also - see who can get them first. Just remember that at present using mean wages, National's growth is three times Labour's. You need to hope the median figures do not just lessen that, but actually reverse it so Labour's growth is higher]
October 18th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
Analysis, eh? Ok, can we see your analysis on another point then:
There are two claims here: (1) “most working 15 year olds live in below average homes” and (2) “most working 15 year olds supplement their parents income”. Both claims are reproduced in their full context here, so please don’t claim I’ve taken them out of context or obfuscated matters.
I would like to see evidence for these claims – is any forthcoming from you?
October 18th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Adjust for CPI and taxes and dont waste anyones time until you do.
“WFF, free child care, cheaper doctors visits” are merely forms of wealth redistribution.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
There’s nothing wrong with using average wages to show that excluding overtime has distorted your results.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I remember a quote from someone that there are 3 types of untruths.
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics!
The Labout party have been twisting statistics for years, it’s about time they got some of their own back!
October 18th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Actually Pete I’ve found some overtime figures and they don’t change things much. Only around $10 net a week wrt the National/Labour difference. Still at least twice as big an increase under National.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I’d much rather have a modern, responsive (most of the time!) business that doesn’t make you wait for two weeks just to have a phone connected! I am old enough to remember the “bad old days” – are you?
Ha! I’ve been waiting for 2 months now to get a phone line put into one site. Got the word today that if we apply next week we might, and that is a big might, be able to get it put in.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Goodness – still no word from Phillip John/Roger Nome?
Should I be disturbed by his claim that “most working 15 year olds” have apparently been sold into servitude? No – he can’t substantiate his claim. But even if he could substantite his claim, and we then moved to the next stage of allocating blame, would his answer be “Labour good, National bad”? I say yes – a quick scan through this thread alone is revealing. We set yet again Phillip John’s attacks on National, NZBR and anything else remotely right-wing.
Which all begs the question: how many other claims can’t he substantiate? It’s a tough life when you can no longer hide behind pseudo-academic babble.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I am sick and tired of people like Tane telling me how much better off we are getting handouts from the State rather than tax cuts. I have been working and saving money for more than 20 years so as to buy my own home before I have kids, and it’s proven virtually impossible. The game is stacked to force me to become a dependent on the State in some way. The disincentives for personal responsibility are just obscene.
That’s why a nation like Australia, moving the way it is on taxes, is just going to keep on burying us economically and the best people are going to keep shooting the gap from here to there. Even when Tane and all the other liberal wallies can’t find a plumber, builder, electrician, or what have you, to do an urgent job on their home, or when they can’t get a doctor for their kids, they still just won’t get it. You can’t run a socialist utopia on obscenely overpaid bureaucrats alone.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Median weekly income
1999: $392
2007: $519
(both in 2007 dollars)
3.6% per annum
Median annual household income
(See table 16.1)
1991: $42 800 ($30 900)
1996: $43 600 ($34 700)
2001: $46 100 ($39 600)
2007$, (nominal)
0.75% per annum
(I’m not going to adjust for tax unless we’re adjusting for the services those taxes pay for)
October 18th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
I’m not going to claim that these figures prove anything (I’d rather make comparisons using a single source), but they illustrate how different comparisons based on median and mean income are.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
So here is Phillip John claiming the virtues of working long hours for penal rates under labour. Was he one of the ones who descried John Key at the last election for suggesting that people could work overtime on weekends to provide for their families? You know, the ones who claimed that people shouldn’t have to work overtime, because it takes them form their families?
October 18th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
“(I’m not going to adjust for tax unless we’re adjusting for the services those taxes pay for)”
Because take home pay is completely meaningless.
This has to be the new Labour party slogan, “Spending your money for you because you would just waste it on stuff you want.”
Or maybe, “Labour, why think for yourself?”.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Or maybe, “Labour, the best and last choice you will ever make for yourself.”
October 18th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Because an increase in take-home pay is meaningless if you have to spend it replacing the services that got cut.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Pete:
>blockquote>
Because an increase in take-home pay is meaningless if you have to spend it replacing the services that got cut.
Yawn – so answer me this Pete:
(1) Do you argue that ALL government funds are being spent properly?
(2) Why don’t you give up your take-home pay altogether (it’s for the public good as well as your own) , and let the government provide all the servcies you need?
October 18th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
poc:
Wow, everything’s all or nothing for you.
1) As long as SOME government spending is beneficial it makes sense to take account of cuts to services.
2) Because I think the appropriate size for government is more than zero and less than 100 percent of the economy.
Yawn.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Pete:
(1) The issue is not whether SOME government spending is beneficial; it’s whether SOME government spending is inefficient. If there are areas of inefficient spending, then returning taxes won’t necessarily lead to cuts in service, will it?
(2) So why does “more than zero and less than 100 percent of the economy” not allow us to aim for a lower level? The inference one takes is that you favour a magical status quo and not a lower level.
Yawn
October 18th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
1) No, the issue is “How has the average worker done under Labour”.
2) It might seem like it sometimes, but not every thread is about tax cuts.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Pete and I have both posted median figures, they were not hard to find. Now they may not have been derived on the same basis as DPF’s mean figures (which came from Quarterly Employment Survey from Stats NZ) but nevertheless they demonstrate that it is possible to easily find median income figures of one sort or another. DFP could have started a thread ahowing changes in income at the median levels. DFP must surely know that the use of a mean rather than a median is not supportable unless the population in question (salary and wages) is normally distributed so why did he post means?
To give an example: There is a small business, one boss and six employees.
Salaries are:
Employee 1 25 5 30
Employee 2 30 5 35
Employee 3 30 5 35
Employee 4 35 5 40
Employee 5 45 5 50
Employee 6 60 25 85
Boss 70 30 100
Total Increase 80
Total Salaries 295 375
Mean 42.14 11.43 53.57
Median 35 40
Employee 1 25 10 35
Employee 2 30 10 40
Employee 3 30 10 40
Employee 4 35 10 45
Employee 5 45 10 55
Employee 6 60 5 65
Boss 70 5 75
Total Increase 60
Total Salaries 295 355
Mean 42.14 8.57 50.71
Median 35 45
Now the striking thing about this is that in the first scenario there has been a total salaries increase of 27% (80/295) while in the second scenario the increase has only been 20% (60/295). The mean salary increase if much higher under scenario 1, being 11.42 in contrast with 8.57 and yet only employee 6 and the boss would prefer scenario 1 to scenario 2 because only employee 6 and the boss are better of under scenario 1 than scenario 2 (they having taken the bulk of the increase in salaries under scenario one).
The political question is which change is better? Scenario one or scenario two. Scenario two benefits more people to a greater extent but there is clearly a larger increase in total salaries under scenario one.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Pete:
So you want to recharacterise the issue as how well workers have done under Labour? You conveniently overlook this gem in DPF’s introducotyr post:
Let’s just check:
(1) $60,000 puts you in the “filthy rich” category – and the top marginal tax rate applies.
(2) But Working for Families support to available to households earning more than $100,000.
Is that really a cause for celebration? Wow – thanks Labour.
And thanks Pete.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Recharacterise? I guess you missed the title of the post.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
*Buzz*
Yes, I was waiting for you to say that. Which is why I pointed you to DPF’s post.
If I passed the “Freedom of Speech Act 2007″ and it preserved freedom of speech for everyone – but muzzled Pete – would you be telling me it’s all about the title?
As Sonic would say, do try to keep up.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
You’re not even making sense now. David posted under the title “How has the average worker done under Labour”, writing about “How has the average worker done under Labour”, then we all talked about “How has the average worker done under Labour”.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
pete/Ross: suggest you format per dpf’s original post, then add as comment or e-mail to dpf. Is the result actually different when you use median?
October 18th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Pete:
Now you’re just being silly. How can we talk about the life of the average worker under different governments, at different times, without taking account of marginal tax rates and inflation adjustments? Again, I can do no better than quote from DPF’s introductory post:
This thread discussion has been wide-ranging, I’ll grant you that, but essentially it comes down to comparing inflation-adjusted average weekly incomes and marginal tax rates.
That’s where Phillip John/Roger Nome went hopelessly astray: he wanted to showcase his usual collection of silly academic references, including one about the NZBR’s activities back in 1986: For instance, in 1986 the NZBR made a public submission on industrial relations in which it took a much harder anti-union line.
While we’re on the subject of Phillip John:
October 18th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
I don’t take Roger Nome seriously. He’s still young and has a lot to learn. Give him a few years.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
PaulL,
I will do that and repost (maybe tomorrow). I don’t know whether it will make a difference or not. I believe DPF when he says he can’t get the median figures for the database that he has used. The difficult therefore will be that when I repost it will be using a set of figures from a different base eg Census figures (for which both the mean and median figures are easily found). My whinge is more about the use of mean figures at all without a qualifying comment as to how appropriate they are.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
If your stats are internally consistent, then surely we can create the same relative data set? It doesn’t need to be comparable to dpfs, just for the periods under Labour and under National to be comparable, inflation adjusted and after tax.
I don’t really believe that income inequality has reduced under Labour, so I doubt that this is going to give us a different result. But interested to see.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
PaulL:
The results are very different. Median income appears to have grown at 0.75%pa under National and at 3.6%pa under Labour.
I think it would probably be a breach of netiquette to write a post-length analysis in the comments (if only I could remember where I left my own blog).
Unfortunately, the two figures come from two different datasets so we’ve gained relevance but lost reliability. So I don’t think my numbers are really that useful; otoh I think they’re more appropriate than David’s.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
From the June 2007 Quarterly Employment Survey:
“It is sometimes said that QES average earnings seem high, being boosted by those employeeswith very high earnings, and that median earnings measures would be more appropriate. QES average hourly earnings are calculated by dividing the total earnings of employees in all surveyed businesses by the total number of hours they are paid for. Average weekly earnings are calculated by dividing total earnings of employees in all surveyed businesses by the number
of FTEs.
A median earnings estimate would be calculated by ranking the earnings of individual employees in order from lowest to highest, and taking the middle one. However, it is not possible to calculate median earnings from data collected by the QES. To do so, it would be necessary to have information on the earnings and hours of each individual employee, whereas the QES collects only the total earnings and hours of all employees at each surveyed business location.
Median and average earnings can be calculated from information collected by the New Zealand Income Survey (NZIS). The NZIS is run every June quarter as a supplement to the Household Labour Force Survey (HLFS). It was run for the first time in the June 1997 quarter. All respondents to the HLFS are surveyed and information is collected on income from selfemployment, wages and salaries (up to three main jobs), government transfers (including payments from the Ministry of Social Development, Inland Revenue and the Accident
Compensation Corporation), and income from investments and other private transfers (including private superannuation, pensions and annuities).
Data from the NZIS for the June 2006 quarter showed that 65.4 percent of wage and salary earners had hourly earnings lower than the overall average for wage and salary earners. This confirms that the distribution of earnings is asymmetrical, with a bulge at the low end and a tail at the high end.
It is important to note that the data from the NZIS is not directly comparable with the QES.”
So, it would be possible to do a similar calculation to DPF using the NZIS data but not for periods before June 1997. GIven that the thread argument is about Labour v National the calculation would not help there. It might be instructive though for the purpose of comparing the results (specifically the movements) for 1997 to 2007 using NZIS figures with the results (specifically the movements) for 1999 to 2007 using the QES figures. Anyone (PaulL?) want to see this?
October 19th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Ross, not sure that covers the period of interest. Pete, I’m probably not suggesting a post length comment, rather the relevant figures. What are the raw median incomes at start and end of each period, the after tax figures, and the inflation adjusted figures?
Another way to proxy this would be to just pull the income inequality figures for the start and end of each period. There must be a way to use that to weight dpf’s existing figures, turning them into some proxy for median income.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:04 am
DPF:
Absolutely superb post. Great to see some truth put to the lie of the “failed policies of the 90’s” so regularly trotted out by Clark and her media cronies.
Even before I read this I was well aware that people have not done well under Labour. The 27% increase in people in severe hardship and the fact that just before the last election, Cullen admited the 41 additional taxes he has imposed have essentially left people right back to where they started.
This is the best a socialst/communist government can do after an unprecedented economic boom. In my mind, it confirms that the increase in the economy has nothing whatever to do with Labour and everything to do with us getting the highest prices for our agricultural products in 50 years.
If this is the best this government can do in these conditions, God help us if they are in power during hard times.
October 19th, 2007 at 7:33 am
Bogusnews Says:
“If this is the best this government can do in these conditions, God help us if they are in power during hard times.
Amen to that………………
October 19th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Roger loses his own argument again. “Nome, If you think Bk, flash clothes and cellphones are necessities, I guess you won.”
They’re things that most adults have – why shouldn’t working children have them as well?”
These are your poor downtrodden underprivileged workers are they nome? Not so underprivileged at all it would seem.
(if ‘most’ adults have them, then they’re doing pretty well, and you have nothing to whine about. Moron)
October 19th, 2007 at 10:26 am
PaulL:
Easy to miss amongst 200 comments, but I’ve posted the relevant figures (and links to the raw data) already.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Another slight of DPF hand that i’ve noticed when running my own figures is that the “average” yearly income in 2006 (inclusive of penal rates) was $42,950. Now the tax rate for people who earn between $38,000 and $60,000 is 34.3%, whereas the rate for people who earn up to $38,000 is only 20.8%.
As Ross K has pointed out …
“Data from the NZIS for the June 2006 quarter showed that 65.4 percent of wage and salary earners had hourly earnings lower than the overall average for wage and salary earners.”
Now, according to the New Zealand income survey, the median weekly income for employed people was $690 – or $35,880 per year.
http://wdmzpub01.stats.govt.nz/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx
So – in fact the “average” New Zealand Worker is going to be taxed at 20.8% – not 34.3% (the figure David has clearly used in his calculations).
So, ill be back later with some figures that reflect this reality – I’ll also be including penal rates. Should be interesting.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Sorry, that should have been ….
Now, according to the New Zealand income survey, the median weekly income for employed people in 2006 was $690 – or $35,880 per year …..
October 19th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Ok – so I’ve done the number crunching – I included penal rates in my calculations, and I used the tax bracket of 20.8% (The rate which the majority of New Zealander’s were taxed in 2006). And I’ve reached the conclusion that the average New Zealander’s weekly income increased at an average rate $10.1 per year under labour (1999 to 2006), while under National, the average worker’s weekly income increased at an average rate of just $3.26 per year (1990-1999).
Of course I would be glad to answer any questions regarding my sources and methodology.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
There’s a different take over here:
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=527
October 19th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Looks like the blue team’s pretty well screwed on this one. Nice try though, thanks for playing!
October 19th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
Since you’ve finished your analysis and feeling smug, can we round off another unresolved matter from yesterday:
There are two claims here: (1) “most working 15 year olds live in below average homes” and (2) “most working 15 year olds supplement their parents income”. Both claims are reproduced in their full context here, so please don’t claim I’ve taken them out of context or obfuscated matters.
I would like to see evidence for these claims – is any forthcoming from you?
October 19th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Phillip John:
and I used the tax bracket of 20.8%
And you used it what – during the 1990s as well? It would actually be useful to see a fuller account ofyour methodology and working data – on this thread or your “Phillip John’s Progressive Politics” blog is fine.
Chop chop.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
POC –
I feel pretty comfortable with the idea that most working people between the ages of 15-17 are in households that have income that’s less than average. After all …
“Data from the NZIS for the June 2006 quarter showed that 65.4 percent of wage and salary earners had hourly earnings lower than the overall average for wage and salary earners.”
Also there’s good evidence to suggest that most 15-17 year olds work in retail.
i.e. 70% of people who work in fast-food are between the ages of 15-17 (union statistics).
Jobs where skill/age don’t matter are disproportionately filled by youth because they are cheaper to employ. Most of these jobs are in the retail sector (approx 20% of total jobs in NZ are in the retail sector).
A statistical study (granted it was done 9 years ago but I can’t think of any ways in which labour market or demographic trends have changed that would effect this) show that the vast majority (over 80%) of people who work in the retail sector live in homes where the total income is below average.
Also worth remembering that in the population as a whole
“in 2006 65.4 percent of wage and salary earners had hourly earnings lower than the overall average for wage and salary earners.”
How likely is it that over half of working 15-17 year olds have parents who are in the top 36% of the income distribution? Certainly my personal experience is that kids from poorer homes have have less pocket money (kids from poorer homes) have more incentive to find work in order to supplement their income (just like with benefits – i.e. generous unemployment benefits increase unemployment no?). Also you will concede that 15-17 year olds from poorer socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to drop out of school early and start working?
So while there’s no concrete statistical proof, it does seems likely that more than half of working 15-17 year olds live in homes with below average income no? Feel free to disagree with me of course.
As to the question of whether most working 15-17 year olds supplement their parents income ….. Well if they’re supporting themselves through buying clothes and food (this is what i did when I was a 15-17 year old – and my family were definitely in the “below average income” bracket), then surely their parents are goign to be spending less money on them. Either that or they’re living away from home and are self-supporting.
Finally whether all this is true or not is actually quite beside the point. If one is doing paid work then their pay rate is clearly important – what they choose to do with their money is their business.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
“during the 1990s as well?”
Nope.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
“It would actually be useful to see a fuller account ofyour methodology and working data”
How interesting that you haven’t asked the same of david
October 19th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Phillip John:
Thanks for your considered response. It made for interesting reading.
But I still don’t think your evidence establishes that “working 15 year olds” are paying the bills. The best you’ve come up with is: if they spend money on themselves, then they’re reducing the household bill-spend.
The problem I have with in 2006 65.4 percent of wage and salary earners had hourly earnings lower than the overall average for wage and salary earners is that the top-end (the likes of Teresa Gattung and, say, Dick Hubbard if his cereal business is humming along) can inflate the average figure. But that statistic doesn’t, of itself, mean that the hourly earnings are inadequate. Other factors such as housing cost have to be considered.
And the bigger picture (my wife and I bring in an above-average household income) is that I would encourage our kids to get work experience in their teenage years. It gives them valuable life experience. It’s not the fact that they’re working that matters, although you claim otherwise, but hey it’s just our different opinions.
And on your other point, I’m sure we can look forward to DPF producing his working data in due course. He’s already said he’ll be sending it to you this weekend.
October 19th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
“And the bigger picture (my wife and I bring in an above-average household income) is that I would encourage our kids to get work experience in their teenage years.”
And? Wealthier people (as a trend) surely will being giving their children more money? The more money you get for nothing the less likely you are to work? Yes? So the wealthier your parents are, the less likely you are to be working when you’re 15-17 (Certainly at my school this was the case) no?
It just seems quite plain and uncontroversial.
October 19th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
It’s not plain and uncontroversial.
That’s the problem with taking personal experience as the empirical evidence, and then extrapolating it out to the general population. I recall quite a few classmates at my school with after-school jobs. No doubt they came from a mixture of backgrounds.
Great minds can disagree.
October 19th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin said: “The way to crush the bourgeoisie (middle classes) is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”
October 19th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
“Vladimir Ilyich Lenin said: “The way to crush the bourgeoisie (middle classes) is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”
Source please
October 19th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
“Great minds can disagree.”
Especially if one of them is particularly cantankerous
October 20th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Tane, Sam and the others all want you to feel as badly done by as they are, hence why that would hate for everyday Kiwis to earn too much money and see how much they are being robbed by the Labour Govt,
I reckon you should all join me overseas – earning more money and paying less tax. It’s jolly good! 700+ Kiwis a week agree with me!
Tane, you planning on staying here inflicting us with your nonsense for too much longer?
October 20th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Kind of ironic that Roger asks for sources when his own theories are pie in the sky. I don’t see stats showing 700+ people coming BACK to NZ per week….
October 21st, 2007 at 12:07 am
Clint:
You mean you didn’t respond to Jim Anderton’s “clarion call” (those were his exact words) a few elections back? How shamelessly unpatriotic of you. It’s every NZer’s duty to pay the maximum amount of tax. Redistribution packages like Working for Families cost money, y’know.