Median Incomes over time
As I hoped, my analysis of how a worker on the average wage has done in the 1990s and 2000s was wildy sucessful as it induced rage from those quarters where facts get in the way of ideology.
Now one fair point raised was, how different is it if one uses median wage rather than mean wage. The problem is there is no quarterly data series going back that far with median wage.
But we do have the census data. And while the dates are not a perfect fit, they do still allow us to look at what happened to net real earnings of a fulltime employee on the median wage/income.
Now as before let’s look at gross nominal median FT income.
Gross nominal median FT income
1991 $25,100
2001 $32,400
2006 $38,400
Over the decade National was roughly in office, median income went up $7,300 or 29.1%. A half decade under Labour and the increase is $6,000 or 18.5%. The average per year in terms of growth then is 2.9% 1990s and 3.7% 2000s.
But now we take tax off, to get after tax income.
Net nominal median FT income
1991 $19,307
2001 $26,166
2006 $30,858
Over the decade National was roughly in office, net median income went up $6,859 or 35.5%. A half decade under Labour and the increase is $4,692 or 17.9%. The average per year in terms of growth then is 3.6% 1990s and 3.6% 2000s.
And then we adjust to get real figures taking into account inflation. The CPI was 736 in 1991, 869 in 2001 and 985 in 2006.
Net real median FT income in March 2006$
1991 $25,839
2001 $29,659
2006 $30,858
Over the decade National was roughly in office, net real median income went up $3,820 or 14.8%. A half decade under Labour and the increase is $1,199 or 4.0%. The average per year in terms of growth then is 1.5% 1990s and 0.8% 2000s.
So a fulltime worker on the median income, has had their real after tax income go up only 4% over five years. Around half of what it was in the 1990s.
Now the point of these posts is not to claim that magically workers do better under Party A than Party B, even though it is nice to wind up the chorus of dissent. It was principally to rebut those exact claims from said chorus about how much better off the average worker is. Because in terms of real after tax income they are not.
But the important point is to remind people why both low inflation and low taxes are important. If you do not adjust tax brackets (at a minimum) then the higher level of tax you pay, plus inflation chews up your pay rises.
In fact if your pay rise is exactly the same as the inflation rate, then your real earnings drop because the average tax you pay increases.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Sam
Where are you ?
October 19th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
There’s a typo in the middle with 3.6% repeated.
[DPF: No they are both actually that]
October 19th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
There’s a different take over here: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=527
[DPF: Sadly, unlike me, you have not provided enough data for it to be verified.]
October 19th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
You’re still only counting those on fulltime incomes – you’re missing people who have come into employment under lbour, movement to more fultime less parttime labour
October 19th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
David, this post is the underlying message which will lose the election forLabour. They think people aren’t smart enough to figure it out but even the most thick arsed indoctrinated Tane or Sonic has someone who goes and buys the groceries. The people who buy the groceries know and when they go into the polling booth they don’t have Tane or Sonic telling them what to do.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
its totally useless as a look at what ordinary people have in their pocket at the end of the day.
also, with high income people shifting earnings from wages to other sources to avoid the 39cent bracket you’ve got an artfical downpush on wages under labour when actually incomes were rising even faster
[DPF: Anyone else hear hat high pitched whining noise which sounds like a helicopter trying to take off. One has to give marks though for desperation excuses]
October 19th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Care to refrence your sources exactly Tane? Or are you hoping that if you dont people wont go looking and just take your word for it?
October 19th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
So no one else needs to bother opening his pictures and typing the url to see the material – heres the only link Tane gives for his data
http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/info-releases/nzis-info-releases.htm
October 19th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
you really must think people are stupid if you think we’ll miss such obvious statistical tricks. for a full look at how the typical adult kiwi’s net income after inflation changed under national and labour check out http://www.thestandard.org.nz
no crappy attempts at disception there, you don’t need to lie when the truthis so good.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
becan – his sources at the 1991 census, the 1996 census and the NZ Income survey, which came in in 1998.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Bevan, my sources are on the graphs. Click on them. You’ll find them. I believe they’re the same sources DPF’s used – only he’s tried to twist them to suit his purposes, as Sam Dixon has pointed out.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Now now Sam, Im just asking questions – no need to get your knickers ina twist. If Tanes figures are correct they will stand up to scrutiny.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Tane: only he’s tried to twist them to suit his purposes
Alternative hypothesis: You twisted them to suit your purposes. And considering your ideological bent Tane, I know who I’d trust.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
How about this DPF?
#
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.
# roger nome Says:
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 …..
# roger nome Says:
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.
[DPF: You seem to be confusing marginal tax rates and average tax rates. the average tax rates changes at every dollar of income]
October 19th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Bevan, my sources are on the graphs.
If you read my post before getting too upset Tane, you would note that I said one had to open the pictures to see the sources – then even provided the link to make it easier for people here. Although I admit my grammer was less than stellar.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
pascal – inflation-adjusted after-tax median income is obiovusly the best representation of what the typical new zealander has in their back pocket a week in any given year.
If you’ve got a dispute with that put up a proper argument, not ‘i don’t know nothing about stats so i’ll trust Farrar’
October 19th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Any chance that you can post me your data sets DPF?
October 19th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
That’s the best governments of both persuasions have been able to do for the average (sorry, median) kiwi over 15 years? About $5,000 a year in additional real take-home income.
If I worked for a company for 15 years and in that time the raises and benefits I received amounted to no more than $5,000… well actually I wouldn’t still be working for them, so that sentence is going nowhere
We all work for the government for good portion of every day. No wonder so many NZers are finding work with a better employer (e.g. the Australian government).
That’s pathetic. More pathetic for Labour than National it appears, but “We’re less crap than they are” isn’t something I’d be shouting from the rooftops.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
“So a fulltime worker on the median income, has had their real after tax income go up only 4% over five years. Around half of what it was in the 1990s.”
Another slight of hand from the Shane Warne of statistics….
During the 1990s the wages of part time workers fell drastically when compared to full time workers.
For instance, from 1990 to 1999 the average wage in the retail sector (where approx 70% of workers are part-time) went from being 75% of the average wage to 70%.
So nice try …
October 19th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Rex, One or two income-improvement opportunities on offer here in NZ. The Ministry of Education is slinging salary cash around like there’s no tomorrow.
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
October 19th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
And right away a “we’re less crap than they are” defence from one of the Ideological Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
I don’t care who did worse than whom over the past x years. I want to know why both, given the opportunity, didn’t do one hell of a lot better.
And what they plan to do to lift their game from here on out. Another $5,000 by 2022? Thanks, but no thanks.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Rex,
There’s a difference between:
a) You work for a company for 15 years. You are now earning $5000 more than when you started.
b) You work for a company for 15 years. New employees now start on $5000 more than you started on.
Yes, (a) would be bad, but (b) is what we’re talking about.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Sorry KK that wasn’t a reference to you.
154 percent since 2002. Not bad. An average 30.8% a year. And here’s one side crowing over 1.5% vs 0.8% and the other side trotting out more stats on part-timers vs full-timers.
Kinda like all the minute analysis of why the All Blacks lost. Doesn’t alter the fact they lost.
Doesn’t alter the fact that if the best Labour and National can do for us over 15 years is make us better off by $5,000 then it’s time to get off the field.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Sam: If you’ve got a dispute with that put up a proper argument, not ‘i don’t know nothing about stats so i’ll trust Farrar’
No Sam, that’s not entirely what I said. What I said is that you, Tane and Roger are so full of ideological bullshit that I wouldn’t trust you not to piss into the wind.
I’m entirely uninterested in disputing your claims because no amount of factual evidence will make any of you three recount an ideological position. All three of you have proved it over your treatment of the EFB and a number of other discussions that has cropped up on here.
So sorry, if I wanted to discuss Labour Party propaganda I’d visit their website.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Also, which CPI series are you using for the 1999-2006 period David? I’ve been using the SE9A (all groups) which can be found at the address below
http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/info-releases/cpi-info-releases.htm
It really would be nice if you provided direct links to all your sources in your posts david. It would also give them much more credibility.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Pascal said:
“No Sam, that’s not entirely what I said. What I said is that me, David Farrar and Adolf are so full of ideological bullshit that I wouldn’t trust you not to piss into the wind.”
Modified for truth.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
([DPF: You seem to be confusing marginal tax rates and average tax rates. the average tax rates changes at every dollar of income])
Come again David? I thought that everyone who earns under $38,000 is taxed at 20.8%. If not, can you explain properly why this isn’t the case?
[Because of low income rebates which mean the effective tax rate is different to the statutory tax rate. This means we pay 15% up to $95,00 and then 21% from $9,500 to $38,000. So the average tax rate from $9,500 changes at each income level]
October 19th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
pete – I know the situations are different, but the that doesn’t alter the fact that governments and their policies over the past 15 years have only managed to raise the median wage by $5,000 to a frankly pathetic $30,858.
I don’t think that’s an acceptable outcome from the government (both National and Labour).
Why do we have lower expectations of those we elect to (presumably) make our lives better than we do of those who employ us? The latter’s only motivation to increase our income is to reward us for our productivity and/or loyalty and/or to value our increasing skills – but only because we are of monetary value to them as units of production.
The greatest calling of government ought surely to be the betterment of the lives of its people. On this measure at least, they rate a fail.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Well done David, I really didn’t think you’d manage to spin this one.
Restricting your analysis to full-time workers ignores the casualisation of labour under the ECA and the reversal of this trend under the ERA.
You’ve made the same mistake you did in your labour productivity post — you get funny results when you take means/medians over the wrong denominator/support.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
rex – a 20% in the typical joker’s wealth in 15 years isn’t bad. And remember, that’s not the same person 15 years later – most people will move from below median to above median over time.
The median didn’t keep up with the average in the 1990s because more wealth went into fewer hands.
(the Social Report released today shows gap between rich and poor is now narrowing, and that nearly every social indicaotr is improving)
October 19th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
toms, how very Third form and quaint. I’m sure you’re the height of reason with your ability to misquote people and put words in their mouth.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Good God! It’s lefties day in Lalaland. So how’s your little Aussie bullshit artist Krudd, getting on then? Slipping a bit, is he?
October 19th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Rex, I think you missed my point — there’s a world of difference between the increase in median income and the median increase in income.
The former was about $5000, the latter will have been much higher. So you can’t compare the $5000 to whatever increase an individual might earn over 15 years.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:03 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).”
In the interests of honest – I would like to say that I made an error in my original calculations. I only used food price inflation in my original 1999-2006 CPI analysis – I’m now using the “all groups figure” (as per my link above). So in fact e average New Zealander’s weekly income increased at an average rate $8.76 per year (not $10.1 as I originally said) under labour (1999 to 2006).
Maybe we should all (Tane, David and me) post links to each others sources and explain our methodology in full – then we can replicate each other’s results for all to scrutinise. This way perhaps we can agree on a fair and objective measure that everyone can agree upon. Is this too much to ask David?
October 19th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Sam Dixon: 20% might not be bad if coming off a higher starting point. $30,858 is rubbish. I’ve posted these figures before but they’re worth repeating, especially as they put the issue of tax levels into perspective.
Tthe situation for the “average production worker” on 100% of the average wage (OECD figures, 2004):
NZ: $38,474 – 20.7% ($7,964) = $30,510
US: $46,542 – 24.2% ($11,263) = $35,279
UK: $50,350 – 24.4% ($12,285) = $38,065
Aus: $53,222 – 24.3% ($12,932) = $40,290
Canada: $55,381 – 24.7% ($13,679) = $41,702
Ireland: $56,498 – 15.7% ($8,870) = $47,718
If you start from a higher base, you can be taxed more and still be better off, obviously. Similarly, if the average worker in NZ was earning $53,000 as they are in Australia, then lifting the level of improvement in real net income by 20% would perhaps be an acceptable effort.
I take your point though that it’s not the same bloke on the median in 2006 as in 1991 (well hopefully not, though I imagine there’d be a few unskilled workers for whom that isn’t true).
And I’m glad to see the disparity between rich and poor shrinking. But I hope that’s as a result of a growth in real wages and no just a redistribution of a stagnant pool of income from rich to poor.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Maybe we can even arrive at a variety of methodologies that give us differing results. Some will be more favorable to National, and some will be more favorable for Labour. As long as we are clear and honest about our methodologies then people can judge the information for themselves without any suspicion of a “spin competition”. Come on David, I’m only interested in getting the truth on this matter. I’m sure most of your readers, both left adn right are as well. So what do you say?
October 19th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
I’ll send Roger my data table at the weekend.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
DPF? Where have you gone?
October 19th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
pete – yes, I did miss your point. Sorry. Put it down to it being Friday. I still maintain that an increase in the median income if $5,000 over 15 years is below par, especially when other countries do much better. I think it’s an important point because, as I said in an earlier post, if workers are on higher gross incomes then the amount of tax they pay becomes less of an issue for them. Australia is seen as the land of milk and honey yet, as the OECD figures above show, the avergae worker there actually pays more tax.
(Of course hospitals are still crumbling, benefits are at a barely survivable level and so on, so there’s still plenty to argue about on the expenditure side of the ledger, but that’s for another thread).
But you make an excellent point re the median increase in income, which would provide another valuable insight into government performance. I don’t have time to hunt out that stat. Anyone able to locate a credible source?
P.S. I wholeheartedly support roger nome’s last paragraph above – sources and methodology where possible would be a way to help keep debate focused and civil.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I’ll look forward to seeing your data (and links to sources?) in the weekend. BTW do you mind talking “to” me rather than “about” me when communicating with me? Cheers.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I’m waiting for those unemployment analysis figures about which DPF mentioned: ” I’ll be doing a separate post on that issue, exposing the myths around that also.”
(but I won’t let the anticipation mess up my long weekend!)
October 19th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
oops …..
That last post was for David of course
October 19th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Rex – $30K is not very much, yet it is the median after tax income in this country – it should be more. You do have to remember however that on top of their after tax income people get governmetn serices, worth something like $14,000 a person a year.
But yup the median should be higher and the beest route to do that is boosting wages for pople on low and meidum incomes and maintianing the redistribution of wealth through taxation from higher incomes.
We all want total income to grow but if all the growth goes into the hands of the few who control the means of production, wll that’s not going to get those median figures rising.
I take it you will also be supporting increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Rex, thanks for taking the time (on a Friday!) to understand my point. Agree with you on the rest.
I suspect that finding the median increase stats would require proper access to Stats NZ’s raw data.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Roger Nome is getting a bit confused. He is mixing up ACC Earner premiums with marginal tax rates. Let’s see if I can simplify it.
Workers must pay 1.3% ACC Earner Premium on all wages income.
Tax rates are 15% to $9500, then 21% from $9501 to $38,000; then 33% from $38,001 to $60,000 then 39% thereafter. So when Roger N. writes about a 34.3% tax rate he really means a 33% tax rate plus 1.3% ACC.
But just to confuse you; Roger writes about a 20.8% tax rate. I think he means 19.5% tax plus 1.3% ACC.
Do the arithmetic and you will find that 19.5% of $38,000
equals
15% of $9500 plus 21% of $28,500 ($38,000 minus $9500).
Bloody Hell!
I thought I could simplify this, but I can’t.
Yeah, an accountant is somebody who fixes up a problem you never knew you had in a way that you will never ever understand.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
“I suspect that finding the median increase stats would require proper access to Stats NZ’s raw data.”
yep – and you can get them but it would cost a few hundred dollars to get the custom made report from Statistics New Zealand.
Anyone who feels so inclined can request this service by sending an email to this address:
info@stats.govt.nz
October 19th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Sam Dixon asks:
Yes, in this instance, because I feel that no one ought to have to work for anything less than that. But only as an emergency stopgap.
Simply increasing the minimum wage without a plan to improve productivity, create new markets for NZ goods and services and use that to raise the real take-home pay of everyone amounts to taking money from one hard worker and handing it to another, creating resentment and driving the latter worker offshore, thus reducing the overall taxation pool (which we’re doing at a rate of around 175 people a week (assuming the 700 fleeing the country are one fulltime worker and three non-working family members – a very rough estimate I know).
October 19th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Thanks tahuie. Not that it really changes my conclusions at all though.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
“You do have to remember however that on top of their after tax income people get governmetn serices, worth something like $14,000 a person a year.”
Where did that figure come from Sam?
October 19th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
“I’m now using the “all groups figure” (as per my link above”
Too follow on from this … why won’t you SHOW everyone the sources and you used to calculate CPI during the 1990-1999 period and the 1999-2006 period. An explanation and a link would be nice. You don’t have something to hide do you?
October 19th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Nominal – Government spending $60billion divided by 4.1million people – those numbers are only approx of course – and its based on everyone getting the same share of government services which obivously isn’t the case – but direct and indirect benefits people get from government spending would be a real bugger to quanitify
- I’m just saying on top of take home pay people get another large source of wealth from the government services that aren’t userpays.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
roger nome -CPI is on stats back to 1993 or something (watch out there have been several reindexings that you need to account for), you can also get all CPIs from the RBNZ inflation calculator, which is a nifty little tool – enter 1000 in 2006 and the year you want and you will get the CPI number for that year in the 2006-base index currently in use.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
man, The Standard has better production values and its got better analysis with honest figures.
DPF, what does HQ think about KB slipping behind?
[DPF: Sam once again go see a doctor to help with this lying problem you have. HQ has no view on on KB. HQ is not in fact particularly political - they mainly do electorate support. You constantly insult my integrity and call me a liar, and expect me to give you unlimited license to do so on my own blog.]
October 19th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Yes sam the spread of the country’s government resources that go into different people is very non-uniform ranging from very little for law abiding people who dont want to (or dont know how to) work the system up into the 10s of millions for some criminal families.
It would be better to make it simple with a songle transparent tax/usere pays/user pays back system. Because of the lack of universal qualification for the services provided by the high taxes, many of us end up paying for the same services twice.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Nome says: “Thanks tahuie. Not that it really changes my conclusions at all though.”
Nothing ever does.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Well you certainly don’t helmet
October 19th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Kevin – I was discussing how we account for the wealth a person receives from government services when discussing the income of the median person, not some bollocks about user pays – obviously there are vast differences between people but if someone can tell me the median amount of government services recieved by a person on median income that would be great, otherwise we have to settle for an approximation.
helmet – tahuie’s corretions didn’t matirally affect nome’s figures as they were all out in the same manner.
DPF – i’m not calling you a liar but you’ve obviously seen my “honesty is the best basis for policy” comment over on the Standard, second time you’ve told me off here for something I said over there, avid reader?
I’m saying you’re choicing to give figures that say one thing and trying to pass them off as something else because it suits you’re political objective. telling only a fraction of the story is distortionary and you know that, you work with stats all the time. Its like Ryall’s fixation with elective surgery figues as if they are a consistant measure of what the health sector does.
October 19th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Anothing thing to take into consideration when looking at this data is external impacts on inflation.
One such impact is oil price. Now oil is a cost in nearly every service and product, so when oil prices increase, so does the cost of nearly everything.
As can be seen on the graph linked to below, the price of oil stayed constant at about the US $20 mark for the entire 1990s.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/OILPRICE
So oil price had no impact on inflation when National was in government. However, it will also be noted that oil price has more than quadrupled since labour has been entered government.
So unsurprisingly rising oil prices have accounted for much of the increase in inflation since Labour has come to power.
“Rising oil prices accounted for nearly half of the June quarter Consumer Price Index increase, but this is just the beginning,”
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR11045.html
So unless Helen Clark is responsible for the huge increase in global oil prices, it seems a little unfair to be including the increase in inflation due to oil price rises in our calculations. Perhaps there is some way of accounting for this?
October 19th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
If you don’t want to be called a liar your best bet would be to ensure any statistics you use pass the laugh test.
I’d normally add something snide about the tone you set on this blog, but you’ve made fantastic progress on that lately. The median poster is pretty civil these days.
October 19th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
“If you don’t want to be called a liar your best bet would be to ensure any statistics you use pass the laugh test.”
Sorry was that intended for DPF?
October 19th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
pete – nice Aurther C Clarke reference
October 19th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Sam/pete: what exactly is your issue with median full-time income v’s median income? It seems to me that if we used median income we then have to correct for hours worked, which isn’t as necessary with full-time. Arguably full-time can mean a few hours more or less, but there are probably studies out there that can give us an indication of movement in full-time hours.
When DPF had average full-time income, you argued that he should use median. Now that he is using median you argue that he should use median income, not median full-time wage.
Would you concede that the median person in full-time employment was worse off under Labour than under National. And we on the right could perhaps concede that further analysis is necessary to work out whether the median income earner and/or median part-time worker was better off or worse off?
It does feel to me that we are shifting the ground a fair bit, and each time you are implicitly conceding ground to DPF – “well yes, that particular subset are worse off, but that isn’t everybody yet.”
If you are agreeing that the median full-time earner was better off under National than under Labour, seems to me that is a pretty big agreement. If you aren’t, then I’d like to understand exactly what you think is wrong with dpf’s analysis of those numbers.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
“When DPF had average full-time income, you argued that he should use median. Now that he is using median you argue that he should use median income, not median full-time wage.”
So? He should be using median for all workers (part time workers are nearly 30% of the work force) if he wants figures that reflect the the reality for “average workers” – not just selecting certain groups for assessment.
“Would you concede that the median person in full-time employment was worse off under Labour than under National.”
No – we haven’t seen a satisfactory breakdown of DPF’s methodology and source yet.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
OK then roger, do you have any figures that contradict dpf’s numbers for the median full time person? Do you have any reason to disbelieve it other than that you think dpf isn’t a reliable source? I haven’t seen any suggestion that his numbers are wrong, merely that you think a different set of numbers are more interesting.
October 19th, 2007 at 7:21 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 7:24 pm
Someone can tell Mickey/Hulun that Aust Labor has just “me too’d” Howard/Costello’s tax plan minus the bit above $180k pa.
So essentially the tax rates previously posted by Dave are locked in.
This tax arbitrage may be more than wee socialist NZ can stand.
October 19th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Tina:
I hate to nitpick, but you’re presumably well-acquainted with “Fred” who used to regularly post on Kiwiblog?
Oh and any bets for this Sunday’s debate between Howard and Rudd? Will Rudd turn up to debate tax policy?
October 19th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Nitpick what?
Rudd has agreed, Howard poised.
The best will be Costello vs Swan….don’t let the children watch.
October 19th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Clearly Costello and Swan will have much to discuss. I see Costello is claiming that Labour’s tax policy is a 91.5% carbon copy of the Coalition’s policy: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22613804-11949,00.html.
We’ll let them slug it out.
An election: the punter’s response to equine flu.
October 19th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
My dream is that NZ can look to Aust and say, “we can be like that , we don’t have to be a mob of bitter socialists locked into the past”.
Always hope triumphs over experience.
October 19th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
“OK then roger, do you have any figures that contradict dpf’s numbers for the median full time person?”
I figure there’s no point until he posts me his stats and methodology.
I’m doing something on “median personal income” from the census data. At this stage I’ve got Labour increasing at 3.1% per annum and National at 1% – still have to adjust it for tax though.
October 19th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Speaking of (wet) dreams, whatever happened to NZ’s dream to be in the top-half of the OECD?
I see the Government is concerned about the mass exodus of NZ business. I feel another Great Wave conference coming on. Ah, yes, it’s in the pipeline. Another talk-fest with no real sense of urgency.
What would be interesting is to compare the relative performances of the NZX and ASX over the last couple of years. It’s a barometer of business profitability expectations. And that’s ultimately what generates bread-and-crust for the masses.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Well put Tina but don’t hold your breath – I’ve been waiting almost 50 years and no sign of it yet! Perhaps we should take a leaf out of their book and hope labour gets in over there and brings them down instead of us having to work to come up to their standard.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Currency unification plus NZ as 8th (?) State with suitable platitudes would banish the comrades from NZ govt permanently.
A single trans Tas equity market is 20 years overdue.
The average NZ mum and dad trader couldn’t even short a stock or an index until recently…..that was reserved for the pros who had arrangements with brokers…. for the privileged only. Very NZ.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Now if we could just get our Aussies home for our next election….
The south Island could merge with Victoria and the NI could merge with NSW and then we wouldnt need a state government. And any Aussie should be allowed to run for our City Councils.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Excellent idea. Or all the mobile skilled productive people who are sick of being cash cows for a retrospectively validated Govt could just leave for Aussie in an orderly fashion… Oh – that’s already happening isn’t it.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
OK – I’ve just done the number crunching for “median personal income” (tax and CPI adjusted).
I’ve got it increasing at a rate of 1.2% from 1991 through 2001 and 3.25% for 2001-2006.
All you need to replicate these calculations are these three web pages:
Go down to “personal income” and it has the median personal income census figures (actually you will need to look for the 2006 figure individually.
http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/pasfull/pasfull.nsf/00c9e0a06fee31764c2568470008f782/4c2567ef00247c6acc256c2f00139bf1?OpenDocument
The CPI calculator can be found here (it’s pretty easy to use)
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/0135595.html
and all the tax tables can be found here:
http://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/index.html
October 19th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
I’m pretty tired so I wouldn’t be surprised if I’ve stuffed up a calculation or two in excel – I look forward to seeing comparisons though.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
There’s something in the voting thing Kev.
There are what? 300,000 Kiwis in Aust.
Surely most fled NZ to get socialism off their backs.
I suspect there is a massive NZ voting block remaing in Aust that the Nats will probably never get around to utilizing ….so many fundraising wine tastings to go to….it’s all soooo hard.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
So – no matter what you have to say about the “median wage” – The median income earner is far better off with labour.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
hehehe – just seen that tax tables are from the US! doh – need some sleep.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
“The median income earner is far better off with labour !!!!!!!!!”
Roger, like someone said before, I suggest you put that on a banner at the airport
October 19th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Phillip John:
The other thing you may wish to consider, when finishing your analysis, is that governments affect take-home pay (through marginal tax rates and macroeconomic effects such as inflation) but they don’t regulate median income levels (the minimum wage is something else altogether). What my employer pays me comes out of the employer’s operating expenses. So median income is kind of an artificial construct, if we’re trying to sheet it home to the government of the day.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
2006 personal income figures (and in fact all three figures) here:
http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2006-census-data/quickstats-about-incomes/quickstats-about-incomes.htm?page=para002Master
roger, I still note that median personal income is very different from median full time income – so still leaves open the question as to whether there is any reason to disbelieve DPF’s analysis. It is entirely possible that the median income earner is worse off than the median full time employee, mostly due to new part-time workers coming into the workforce, and thereby dragging down the median. That might or might not be a bad thing, depending on the reasons and their circumstances. It certainly isn’t the same comparison, and I personally think it is much more error prone than full-time income is.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
“roger, I still note that median personal income is very different from median full time income”
I know – I just want to provide an alternative to David’s very narrowly focussed analysis. As I said, I won’t bother to replicate his analysis until I have his data.
BTW – does anyone know if the historic tax rates are available on the net?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
I can find the tax rates, IRD don’t have a useful online calculator (one that covers the low income rebate), so looking directly at the tax packs. For 2006 the rates are http://www.ird.govt.nz/resources/file/ebb0314cfee3d64/ir3g-2006.pdf
Tax rate is 19.5% up to 38,000. Rebate is $427.50, less 1.5% of everything over 9,500. For an income of 24,400 this gives me tax of $4962. Damn, I remember why I hate filling in tax returns.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Roger Nome et al
You can’t dispute the fact that housing is far more unaffordable under Labour than it ever was under National.
Now it’s not all Labour’s fault but the middle class are piling into rental properties to lessen their tax burden since the top rate kicks in at a miserable $60,000 and archaic tax law means capital gains are effectively tax free. If Labour had any balls at all and governed according consistent principles it would have fixed the tax law. It is has been found that the wealthy make far more of their income from capital gains than the poor.
But of course Labour are scrambling around with silly ideas like getting developers to build more affordable housing. So what if most new houses are ’superior’ dwellings. The people who move into them move out of somewhere else. If many of these secondhand houses weren’t being snapped up by newbie landlords, they might be affordable to first home buyers.
This is one area where I agree with the Greens. Fix up the tax law so capital gains from property are taxed.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Phillip John:
So can we expect a post on your blog? It’d be interesting to see the raw data, as well as your working calculations.
And the historic tax rates aren’t going to be conclusive. As DPF pointed out to you earlier today, there’s low income rebates and the like, which tend to distort things.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
2001 here: http://www.ird.govt.nz/resources/file/ebd4280601b4d4a/ir3g-2001.pdf
Tax calc looks the same, I guess this makes sense since we had no tax cuts
So far I have after tax of 19,438 in 2006, and after tax of 13,450 in 2001.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
“And the historic tax rates aren’t going to be conclusive.”
What the hell was DPF’s methodology then?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Anthony:
…archaic tax law means capital gains are effectively tax free.
Actually the “archaic tax law” is ridiculously broad. IRD has acknowledged that there’s room to apply the tax law (especially the “buying for the purpose of resale” test) more rigorously. Wanaka copped it and they’ve now moved on to other locations.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Cheers PaulL – Now for 1996 and 1991?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Anyone know the 1991 tax rates? IRD seem to have forgotten them.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Did you get the 1996 median personal income? I missed that one, I only got 1991, 2001 and 2006.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Paul:
Just a thought: I don’t know if the 1991 budget speech and materials are readily accessible online, but that’s probably a starting point.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Totally agree Anthony – though there is a good argument for the idea that National created the bubble (low interest, no capital controls) – still this doesn’t excuse Labour for not doing anything about it.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Tina
I think a National party campaign running in Aussie is a great idea. It will help balance the Union effort in NZ.
Something like a full page news paper add.
If you are enjoying lower taxes and higher wages here in Aussie then
spare a though for friends and family back home.
Cast a party vote for National and give your friends and family a taste of what living without socialism can be like. /i>
October 19th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
PaulL
1996 unadjusted median personal income was $15,600.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
My mistake, I now have 1991 from roger’s link, 1996, 2001 and 2006 from mine. No tax rates for 1991 or 1996. CPI from this link: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/0135595.html
October 19th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
That’s laughable roger, it just shows how pathetic the median is as a measure. A bicycle courier in 1996 could expect to earn 25-35K a year. You have just shot the entire median vs average argument to bits.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Ahhh the “mother of all budgets” lest we forget POC
October 19th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
“That’s laughable roger, it just shows how pathetic the median is as a measure. A bicycle courier in 1996 could expect to earn 25-35K a year.”
So people on low incomes don’t matter?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Hardly roger, only you could twist it like that.
NO I’LL MAKE IT CLEAR – A BICYCLE COURIER IS UNLIKELY TO BE A GOOD MEASURING STICK FOR WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE LIVING SUFFICIENTLY WELL TO RAISE A FAMILY. THERE WAS NO WFF IN 1996 REMEMBER!
So all that number shows is that we probably have been losing lots of part time workers from the workplace due to extending welfare into the middle and upper classes.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
No, people on that low an income are probably not working full time. It is very problematic to calculate anything sensible from their earnings. They might be on a benefit, they might be students working nights, they might be lots of things. Problem is, it is impossible to work out what.
I don’t think I can find the tax rates, and I am sure dpf knows them. I’m also beginning to doubt the usefulness of the result once calculated. I have no idea how we would correct for hours worked, and without correcting for hours worked there is absolutely no way of working out anything useful for this. It just leads into a discussion on how many hours those people worked, and whether it is good or bad if they worked more or fewer. And we cannot know if it was good or bad unless we know whether they wanted to work those extra hours, and know the hourly rate that they worked at.
The median full time income doesn’t suffer from any of these problems. So I’m probably happy to revert to just that statistic – it seems to have some consistency over time that makes statistical sense.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Is cullen right about this ….?
Hon Bill English: What does it say about the Government’s priorities that a New Zealander who earns $39,000 faces a tax rate of 33c—and has done now for the whole 8 years that that Minister has been in charge—and that the Minister’s first tax cut was $1 billion for corporates?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I note that the 33c rate was actually introduced in 1988 and remained unchanged throughout the 1990s. The member has suddenly had a conversion experience, but unfortunately for him it was on the road to nowhere rather than on the road to Damascus.
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/Speeches/d/3/5/48HansS_20071009_00000190-English-Bill-Questions-for-Oral-Answer-Questions.htm
October 19th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
The rate yes. The threshold, I’m not sure about.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
“I have no idea how we would correct for hours worked, and without correcting for hours worked there is absolutely no way of working out anything useful for this”
Average hours worked has remaied pretty flat since 1991 – see the 2006 labour market report.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
roger nome
You clearly haven’t been around long enough to remember how much of a flip flop political life NZ has had with these two twisted major parties. Get over it. One season it’s National lifting taxes and Labour screaming, then the game reverses for a while. Most who are concerned about it choose a political party and from that point forward never notice their own party doing the things they denigrate other parties for doing. Keep up.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
“NO I’LL MAKE IT CLEAR – A BICYCLE COURIER IS UNLIKELY TO BE A GOOD MEASURING STICK FOR WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE LIVING SUFFICIENTLY WELL TO RAISE A FAMILY.”
Exactly – which goes to show how bad off “average” people were under National in the 19990s!
October 19th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
“No, people on that low an income are probably not working full time. It is very problematic to calculate anything sensible from their earnings. They might be on a benefit, they might be students working nights, they might be lots of things. Problem is, it is impossible to work out what.”
Ah so only people who are working full time matter. The other half of the working age population? They can go to hell I guess.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Yes roger, yes, and how poorly the economy was running when it was handed to National in near bankruptcy forcing the mother of all budgets.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
“You clearly haven’t been around long enough to remember how much of a flip flop political life NZ has had with these two twisted major parties.”
Oh don’t be such a fuddy duddy burt – I’ve read every NZ politics and history book I can get my hands on so don’t give me that bloody “i’m old therefor I know better” attitude.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
No not part time workers go to hell, how bad pay was in 1996. And how bad it is today.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
roger nome
I’m suspect based on your inability to see anything other than Labour Good National Bad that only half the story sticks with you. You did need to ask if National introduced the 33% rate afterall.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Well – Full time workers are only about 60% of the working age population Burt – I’m suggesting that the other 40% also matter.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
“I’m suspect based on your inability to see anything other than Labour Good National Bad”
Actually for me it’s more like labour bad, National worse Burt
October 19th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Stop going round in circles on specific groups roger, you are debating a statistical mid point, it’s noting but half way down a line. It is meaningless without a shit load more information to make any sense out of it.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I agree burt – as with any specific measurement we’ve seen mentioned on this thread, it needs to include others to give it perspective. That’s why I think this one could be a good companion to DPF’s (if his turns out to be methodologically sound).
October 19th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Burt:
Phillip John has basically challenged DPF to produce his raw data. But Phillip John has also asserted that DPF is wrong – unless Phillip John can confirm the same conclusion. Not exactly a great starting point for discussion.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
“Phillip John has also asserted that DPF is wrong”
you mean yet to be proven right.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Phillip John:
No, you basically said DPF has taken a narrow approach, used wrong methodology, and various other criticisms.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
“unless Phillip John can confirm the same conclusion.”
others who wish to fact check it are free to do the same …. POC
October 19th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
“No, you basically said DPF has taken a narrow approach, used wrong methodology”
True – I think his leaving out of part-time workers was a little disingenuous – especially as so many full time jobs were turned in to 2,3 or 4 part time jobs during the 1990s – with penal rates cut as well as base wage rate.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Phillip John:
Do try to keep up. There’s a world of difference between saying DPF is wrong unless you can verify his findings; and simply asking for the data to verify his findings.
Your blinkered ideology sometimes gets in the way.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
“Your blinkered ideology sometimes gets in the way.”
Well sorry that I don’t have the “right” ideology POC
October 19th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Phillip John:
The thing is, I’m not the one who’s on record as saying that reality has a left-wing bias
October 19th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
“The thing is, I’m not the one who’s on record as saying that reality has a left-wing bias”
ohh too cute POC – let me guess, you’re one of those “objectivists”
October 19th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Phillip John:
My usual quibble is you dress up opinion as fact – and then refuse to recognise other opinions. Quoting a 1986 NZBR submission on industrial reform, for example, has nothing to do with the EFB.
I don’t come here to persuade you to change your mind. I went through university, and attended lectures by a noted Marxist, a Maori sovereignty supporter, a committed environmentalist, and free-market advocates – to name a few. None of them can claim, to the Phillip John standard of objectivity, to be right. But they have their own opinons. All I ask is that you recognise others – without denigrating them.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
I merely question POC – I’ve been a bit “mean” to DPF it’s because he does statistics for a living, so we know full well that he’s tacking the mickey when he posts things like “average wages without penal rates” in the year of the ECA when income inequality sky rocketed, and over-time rates all but disappeared. He’s being deliberately deceptive so he’s being treated accordingly.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Phillip John:
Lest you forget DPF’s introductory post:
We’ve seen many a reference from you to “National in the 1990s”. So good luck if you want to find the objective truth – because marginal tax rates aren’t going to tell the full story. And your reference to the 1996 unadjusted median personal income [being] $15,600 basically acknowledges this.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
sorry “taking”
October 19th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
“It was principally to rebut those exact claims from said chorus about how much better off the average worker is. Because in terms of real after tax income they are not.”
Yes but he’s been deliberately misleading in the process hasn’t he? That’s the point.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
“nd your reference to the 1996 unadjusted median personal income [being] $15,600 basically acknowledges this.”
No – that was in acknowledgment that it wasn’t adjusted for inflation or tax – it actually should have read “nominal, before tax” ……
October 19th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Good God – you’ve repeatedly claimed that DPF is being “deliberately misleading”. And the same goes for Sam Dixon. If DPF does statistics for a living, which you acknowledge, then why would he risk his professional credibility by being “deliberately misleading”?
October 19th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
“If DPF does statistics for a living, which you acknowledge, then why would he risk his professional credibility by being “deliberately misleading”?”
Good point DPF?
Actually i.e. just thinks it shows his numerical manipulation skills – any prospective client who wishes to have a few figures spun in their favor would be impressed I imagine.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
shit it really am sleep deprived. Tha should have read
Actually I just think it shows his numerical manipulation skills – any prospective client who wishes to have a few figures spun in their favor would be impressed I imagine.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Phillip John:
Which brings me back to my point (yes, boring I know): the marginal tax rates don’t tell the full story. One has to take into account income tax rebates, and other adjustments, before reaching any firm conclusions.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
“Which brings me back to my point (yes, boring I know): the marginal tax rates don’t tell the full story. One has to take into account income tax rebates, and other adjustments,”
Yep – which is why I look foward to seeing DPF’s methodology broken down for everyone to see.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Well, at least I know what you’ll be doing this weekend, hope your girlfriend doesn’t distract you from the statistical analysis
October 19th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
“Well, at least I know what you’ll be doing this weekend, hope your girlfriend doesn’t distract you from the statistical analysis”
No absolutely not – the chris trotter talk will only take an hour or so I imagine
October 19th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Anyway money isn’t everything hey?
You righties will enjoy reading this.
“A report released today by the Ministry of Social Development showed New Zealand was equal to, or above the OECD median for 12 of the 20 indicators looked at.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4242448a10.html
October 19th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Phillip John:
If NZ is doing so well, can you explain why the Government has decided to have another Great Wave-style conference to discuss why NZ is in the economic doo-doo?
October 19th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
“If NZ is doing so well, can you explain why the Government has decided to have another Great Wave-style conference to discuss why NZ is in the economic doo-doo?”
It could quite possibly be all contained in your name. But you don’t believe in things like non-renewable resource depletion
October 19th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
No, Phillip John.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4236607a6445.html
I think you’ll find that’s there’s more to life than peak oil.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
The money quote:
Is this why Labour’s quietly dropped the “top-half of the OECD” objective?
October 19th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
I don’t know DPF but I find it hard to credit that he is the devious Machiavellian Mastermind some of you guy are painting him as. He posted mean salary figures, did some calaculations, and we all screamed “Hey, that may not be statistically valid, use the median values”. He’s done that, they tell much the same story and, to be honest, I don’t find his conclusions that hard to believe. As for asking him to post all his calculations and data sets etc, Come on! This is a blog and the debate is only as good as all the participants are willing to make it. A lot of the tuff DPF posts is not that hard to verify independently – seems a bit rich to ask him to do all the work for you.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Oh and jsut for you Phillip John:
Now, Phillip John, who do you think might be responsible for that statement?
October 20th, 2007 at 12:22 am
(PaulL)
No, because DPF’s numbers don’t show that. The ECA and then the ERA caused changes in the structure of the labour market; therefore the set of “full-time workers” is a different category in each of the years considered.
I had several points of disagreement with DPF’s original post. The mean/median issue was the most glaring, so I focussed on that, but as it turns out it was not the most important.
I recommend you have a look at The Standard where they’ve done a proper analysis of the median income trend.
October 20th, 2007 at 2:44 am
Pete:
DPF actually has an advertising policy:
There’s a possibility you’ve breached DPF’s advertising policy. But not to worry: I’m sure DPF would gratefully accept gold coin donations for link-whoring to The Standard
October 20th, 2007 at 3:35 am
Every now and again it’s good to get back to the central issue which in my mind is this:
Labour inherited a very successful economy from the National party (1999 growth of 3%, 1.5Bil surplus, productivity nearly 3 x higher than now and NZ business gaining a new 2Bil in overseas earnings.) I can’t see how anyone (but the totally ideologically blind) can say that this was not a very healthy platform for Labour to work with.
Labour was then incredibly fortunate that our farmers gained the highest commodity prices in a generation which gave the economy, already on the verge of taking off, the final impetus it needed.
But something is not right. Why is it that people living in severe hardship has increased by 27%? Why did Cullen admit just prior to the last election that with the 41 additional taxes they have imposed, the average NZ’er is essentially right back to where they started. This is further reinforced by NZ slipping another notch in the OECD stakes.
Even without looking deeply at DPF’s figures, the idea behind them rings very true. I’ll be very interested to see Rogers figures, although the problem is I know he will only twist and contort them to suit his own ends.
I said before, if what we have today is the best Labour can do after the most superb economic conditions of any generation, then God help us if they are in during hard times.
When you post your figures Roger, you should show people are spectacularly better off under Labour. Anything less is a disgrace given the economy they inherited and the economic conditions they have enjoyed.
October 20th, 2007 at 7:43 am
Well said bogus news. Labour have peed our wealth against the wall for the last 8 years. I dont think the word “spectacular” appears in their vocabuary
October 20th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Pete, been over there, and a) less detail posted than DPF did, and b) I think median income numbers have far more anomalies in them than median full time income does.
I do now understand where your argument about this is going. You are suggesting that, under National, a lot of people who would otherwise have been lower than the median full-time income moved from full-time work to part-time work. And that therefore this artificially increased the pay of the median worker (remembering that the median worker is a statistical construct, so this isn’t a real person whose income is increasing, more we are selecting a different person at each point).
This may or may not be true. If that is your main argument, then you should be looking for the statistics that show the number of full-time workers decreasing in this period. My recollection is that unemployment decreased under National but I don’t have statistics as to whether this was full time or part time. I believe unemployment increased under the non-traditional Labour govt that came before. And that, in turn, this unemployment increased under that Labour govt largely because the unemployment that was hidden inside state organisations and unprofitable businesses turned into real unemployment with the reforms of the 80s. We can argue whether this was good or bad, but I note that that unemployment is now largely gone, and most of it gone into proper jobs (although some would argue that the substantial growth of the state sector in recent times indicates some level of hidden unemployment).
October 20th, 2007 at 10:10 am
PaulL:
You are correct that unemployment has been decreasing since 1990:
1990: 7.5%
1999: 6.9%
2007: 3.5%
Percentage working part-time over that period [PT/(PT+FT)]:
1990: 24.3%
1999: 32.1%
2007: 29.9%
This means statistics calculated for “full-time workers” over this period are not comparable.
* all figures are for June quarter, from stats.govt.nz table builder
October 20th, 2007 at 10:35 am
DPF
Good to see a little open mindedness in your analysis. Tane over at The Standard is trying to tell us that the total effect of inflation between 1991 & 2006 is a gross total of 4%.
It’s not surprising their graph ended up looking just like they wanted it to after such blatant manipulation of the statistical data.
October 20th, 2007 at 10:41 am
We are working with three time series here:
x. median real net income for workers who would have been FT in 1990
y. ditto in 1999
z. ditto in 2007
But we only know one data point from each series: x_1990, y_1999, z_2007.
y_1999 > x_1990, but you can’t really describe it as an “increase” because you’re jumping from one series to another.
October 20th, 2007 at 11:03 am
burt:
You got “4%” by comparing the gross nominal income with the net real income.
There was an adjustment for tax and an adjustment for inflation. The difference ends up being small because the tax adjustment is negative and the inflation adjustment is positive.
October 20th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
yeah do follow burt’s link – its hilarious..
first he didn’t understand what inflation-adjusted meant and said ‘what about the cost of livng going up?’ then he thought he was so clever because he got higher inflation-ajusted figures, of couse he had forgotten to take off tax.
October 20th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Lies, lies and damn statistics to prove your point of view. GDP’s the better measure http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/pasfull/pasfull.nsf/7cf46ae26dcb6800cc256a62000a2248/4c2567ef00247c6acc25713e000ab753?OpenDocument check out the GDP growth in the mid 1990’s. Also, it’s pointless to compare the periods from the start of the political term, because it takes 2 to 3 years for the new policies to kick in. As bogus news points out there’s no point in trying to prove whether Melissa median is a couple of percentage points better off under labour, we need to ask why she isn’t spectacularly better off.