Labour too right wing
November 30th, 2007 at 7:23 am by David FarrarJordan Carter has been enjoying European socialism too much, he wants more of it here:
My colleagues in the Labour Party sometimes are a little bit baffled when I express frustration about how “right wing” our party is. It is a disconcerting thought that what was a “third way” fifty years ago is now seen by many as hard left.
Well my guess is because every country with a hard core socialist policy agenda has pretty much failed spectacularly. But hey I’m all for Jordan encouraging Labour to pursue the policies of the 1950s.
I do not accept that current Labour politics – in the UK, or in New Zealand, or in Australia or anywhere else – gives enough substance to this drive to equality. It can only be achieved with strong public services, carefully regulated labour markets, generous welfare states and the substantive promotion of political, social, economic and cultural rights. This is not where left wing politics is these days. It is far out on the right wing edge of it.
I may be wrong but when Jordan talks about economic rights, I suspect he is not talking about for example defending people”s economic and property rights – but instead legislating to over-turn the rights of individuals in the economy.
The next challenge is going to be in the next election, showing how we are planning to build on our success to date to begin to move down the agenda of building a more equal society.
Well good on Jordan for posting the challenge, even though of course I disagree – but I’m not his target audience. He is basically saying that Labour has done well managing the economy for eight years and he wants more spending to create an “equal society” to overcome the morally arbitrary luck that gives some people more talent.
Of course Helen is now promising tax cuts – so I’m not sure how that fits in.
And it would be nice if commenters in the thread focus on the policy and political debate, rather than personalities.
No tag for this post.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:47 am
What would the ideal outcome be for Jordan at the end of the day?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 7:48 am
Of the 10 countries with the highest per capita GDP, 6 take in a bigger percentage of tax than us. So there is definitely is more to prosperity than tax cuts…
And I do think we are far too preoccupied with Australia…
This of course also demonstrates one of the main differences between the left and right – you think people with more talent rise to the top, where I’d argue people with more talent who are white and male and have good connections rise to the top.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Interestingly, Jordan is advocating a very different position to the Australian Labor Party under Rudd:
“Joining Ms Gillard will be Wayne Swan as Treasurer and Lindsay Tanner as Minister for Finance and Deregulation. For the first time, Australian businesses will benefit from a Cabinet Minister responsible for reducing regulations – not just creating them.”
http://www.labor.com.au/media/1107/mspme290.php
Now Tanner was closely grilled on this, and he made it very clear that deregulation will happen under his watch. Whether this actually happens is, of course, another matter.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:02 am
so a gay canadian labour activist courts the left wing of the party in an increasingly desperate attempt to demonstrate his socialist credentials and secure a list nomination – ok.
well it is the time honoured way of getting ahead in the new zealand labour party.
Wouldn’t want any actual blue collar grubby worker types intruding in the debate about the purity of the social equity agenda now would we?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:03 am
<i>it would be nice if commenters in the thread focus on the policy and political debate, rather than personalities.</i>
You must be new around here.
[DPF: I said it would be nice, not likely
]
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:03 am
And while I’m at it, I also hate the “higher taxes mean less incentive to get ahead”…
Even at 99% income tax, you’re better off earning $100k than $50k – in everything except communism there’s a monetary incentive to get ahead!
And most successful people are successful because they’re passionate about what they do, not because they set out to make as much money as possible.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:07 am
and there was me thinking this was fair game after the very fine fine examples set by our senior Cabinet Ministers – the bold new standard of transparency and accountability I seem to recall we were promised.
Carter won’t respond to a question without asking if the questioner is a Christian, Mallard slags anyone under privilege (when he’s not attacking them), TPF 40 counts of just trying to help, Dalzell stood down for accidentally getting caught, Parker stood down for dodgy companies declarations, Dyson done for drink driving, etc etc
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Rickyjj:
*Sigh*
Ever heard about incentives? And your example (admittedly extreme) highlights the absurdity of your position. The second $50k at 99% tax leaves $500 in the pocket post-tax.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:09 am
yeah right ricky, well try nationalising their businesses and find out how happy they will be to work 80 hours a week for nothing, oh hang-on they’ve already left for Australia, wonder why…
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:11 am
rickyjj at least try for a modicum of consistency. Which is it?
“… I’d argue people with more talent who are white and male and have good connections rise to the top.”
or
“And most successful people are successful because they’re passionate about what they do, not because they set out to make as much money as possible.”
Can’t be both mate.
Let me guess,
You are unsuccessful because you are not passionate enough or do you actually blame the fact that you are passionate but not white?, or is it that you are white but not male and impassionate? or are you just disconnected?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Jordan’s comments appear to be the musings (rantings?) of another Chardonnay socialist, plentiful in NZ at the moment.
Thank God we’re not all born equal. Long live the difference!
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Ever heard about incentives? And your example (admittedly extreme) highlights the absurdity of your position. The second $50k at 99% tax leaves $500 in the pocket post-tax.
Well I’d rather have that extra $500 than not have it… And I think most people would happily take an extra $500!
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Can’t be both mate.
Why can’t it be both?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Rickyjj:
Are you trolling?
I’ll humour you, in case you’re not. Don’t you suppose there’s a difference in the performance criteria required for a $50k job compared to a $100k job? Can you show me someone who would pay an extra $50k for the same job, particularly knowing that 99% of it would be a tax donation?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:15 am
ricky old chum, try to engage brain before plugging in the keyboard
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:15 am
If you look at most of our top lawyers (for example), most of them are white males. They are all also very passionate about what they do.
This differentiates them from 2 groups – people passionate about law who are not white or male, and people who are white and male but not passionate about law…
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:18 am
rickyjj: Well I’d rather have that extra $500 than not have it… And I think most people would happily take an extra $500!
To qualify for earning $100K, as opposed to earning $50K you need to be worth a bare minimum of $100K per year and that only allows them to break even on employing you. You also need to take on a substantial higher amount of personal responsibility, and with it risk. That is part of the territory when you look at a higher salary.
Are you saying you would be working that much harder to double your salary and double the amount of money you bring into your employer’s company for only $500 per year benefit to yourself?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Are you trolling?
Haha nup.
I’ll humour you, in case you’re not. Don’t you suppose there’s a difference in the performance criteria required for a $50k job compared to a $100k job? Can you show me someone who would pay an extra $50k for the same job, particularly knowing that 99% of it would be a tax donation?
I think there’s a difference in performance, but I don’t think someone who earns $100k is working twice as hard as someone who earns $50k… And when you get into the upper reaches of salaries in the US I’d say there’s an extremely small difference in performance between someone who earns $5 million and $50 million.
People pay more to get the people they want, and people take the best jobs they can get – this wouldn’t change no matter what the tax was.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:21 am
rickyjj: If you look at most of our top lawyers (for example), most of them are white males. They are all also very passionate about what they do.
Do you have any actual numbers to back this up? (Rate based) Or are you simply sprouting an fanciful ideological position?
I’m going to have to agree with Peak here.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Are you saying you would be working that much harder to double your salary and double the amount of money you bring into your employer’s company for only $500 per year benefit to yourself?
Yep. Although I’m not sure how much “harder” I’d be working – I tend to work as hard as I can whatever my job is.
It would probably also be a more interesting and challenging job, and hey you have to do something, so why not earn an extra $500?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Do you have any actual numbers to back this up? (Rate based) Or are you simply sprouting an fanciful ideological position?
Not off the top of my head, although I’m sure they’re out there. There’s lots of actual numbers about board members, which I’m much more familiar with, would you like to look at them instead?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:24 am
rickyjj: And when you get into the upper reaches of salaries in the US I’d say there’s an extremely small difference
Good thing this is New Zealand then, huh?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Rickyjj:
You’re distracting attention away from the thread topic, but I’ll give you some homework: find the numbers that you’re “sure” are out there.
Look up the number of female QCs. Compare across all the leading law firms the number of female partners and senior associates. And then report back to me.
Until then I’m inclined to think you’re living in a fantasy world. There are none so blind as one who won’t see.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Good thing this is New Zealand then, huh?
Haha are you going to stop complaining about how Australia has lower tax now?
I agree this is New Zealand – not Australia.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:27 am
rickyjj: Not off the top of my head, although I’m sure they’re out there.
Alright, see if you can find the percentage of white male lawyers as a percentage of population versus other racial groups.
BTW. Who is the Deutsche Bank CEO? And who was Telecom’s previous CEO, earning what was (likely) one of the highest salaries in New Zealand?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:29 am
ricky, under your 99% income tax regime, how much would the dole pay?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Look up the number of female QCs. Compare across all the leading law firms the number of female partners and senior associates. And then report back to me.
Alright, see if you can find the percentage of white male lawyers as a percentage of population versus other racial groups.
I’ll get back to you
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:33 am
rickyjj: Haha are you going to stop complaining about how Australia has lower tax now?
No, because we are currently experiencing a very real drain of people to Australia. Not to America. Their taxation rates and proximity to us makes them a more viable comparison to us, as well as the visa and immigration crossovers, etc.
Of course, you’re also the person who says that people will take on a job paying double their salary with all the associated work and risk for only a $500 per year bonus to themselves. Which would prompt me to ask – have you actually *held* a job that pays 100K?
It’s not quite as simple as “working as hard as you can”. There are performance expectations, because for an employer to fork out $100K for an employee versus forking out $50K for an employee means the work that said employee does must be worth a bare minimum of $100K to them. Ergo – more work, more responsibility, more risk.
All for $500 per year? Heh.
But I’m starting to see what you are trying to do here. The main aim is to distract once more, as when I pointed out to you that a comparison to US CEO salaries is falacious, you suddenly leapt to pointing out that comparisons to Australian tax is foolish. It seems to me that your aim is merely to distract from the main topic and to score “points” so to speak, not to actually debate the topic at hand.
No point in that.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:38 am
rickyjj
I am good at what I do, even if I say so myself I am one of the best around.
Vote:Do you think that I should be paid the same amount as somebody who is bloody hopeless, somebody who does not work as hard or smart as I do?
November 30th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Jordan needs less arse more class, as his rhetoric is boarding on insanity plus cosmic confusion ??
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Actually, Jordan might have a point. Maybe Labour is too right wing. If they took the hardline communist stance it might be good for New Zealand overall.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:53 am
We could all goose step around the streets in our red drag queen Labour supplied dresses chanting forget the IRA -its Auntie Helen All The Way – OI OI OI
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Jordan is getting the jitters because it’s dawned on him that a hefty election defeat is less than a year away. The only policy Labour currently believe’s in is the EFB. They don’t really think tax cuts are a great idea but made a political decision to have them anyway.
They have real problems in health and corrections, they helped pass that silly anti smacking legislation which is deeply unpopular with middle New Zealand. Finally they have a leader and front bench that looks tired and out of touch like the Liberals in Aussie looked during their election campaign.
No wonder Jordan wants to move closer to his socialist roots.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 9:20 am
No, because we are currently experiencing a very real drain of people to Australia. Not to America.
But surely if you were talented you’d rather earn $50 million in the US? Gee maybe all the people going to Australia aren’t actually that great… Maybe it’s not so much a brain drain as a body drain?
Of course, you’re also the person who says that people will take on a job paying double their salary with all the associated work and risk for only a $500 per year bonus to themselves. Which would prompt me to ask – have you actually *held* a job that pays 100K?
Oh God no Pascal, when I’m not trolling on here I’m actually one of those guys who rifles through bins for food. I found half a muffin this morning – good times.
But I also wonder if you’ve ever held such a job… Employees don’t take on risk, directors and shareholders do.
And I would have thought wages were allocated on a supply and demand basis – someone earns double another not because they’re twice as valuable but because that is how much their relevant skills cost on the free market.
Yes it is. People don’t work harder and harder as they get older, progress up the ladder and earn more, but rather they develop new skills and experience and so are more valuable assets on the market.
There are performance expectations, because for an employer to fork out $100K for an employee versus forking out $50K for an employee means the work that said employee does must be worth a bare minimum of $100K to them.
You keep saying this, but this doesn’t mean the employee is necessary worth any more to them. Both the $50k and $100k employees might be worth $250k to the company, yet the skills of the $100k employee might be rarer and so the company has to pay more to acquire them.
At the end of the day, if everybody in a company earned the same amount I’d still rather be the boss making the decisions then a person on the lowest rung taking orders. I’m not convinced increased challenges and responsibility are the negatives you make them out to be.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 9:22 am
I am good at what I do, even if I say so myself I am one of the best around. Do you think that I should be paid the same amount as somebody who is bloody hopeless, somebody who does not work as hard or smart as I do?
Big bruv – No I don’t think you should be paid the same amount, your skills are more valuable and so you should get more.
I’m just not convinced it’s your right to earn say 50 times more than them.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 9:30 am
rickyjj: But I also wonder if you’ve ever held such a job… Employees don’t take on risk, directors and shareholders do.
Actually, I do currently hold such a job. And the fact that you don’t know about the risk employees take on (Risk associated with the responsibility that comes with such a position) shows me you have not.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 9:32 am
of course carter is talking sense..
on any reputable ideological spectrum you can barely slide a cigarette paper between national and labour..
and of course that (mild-left) formula/model carter proposes is ‘the way to go’..
(this ‘labour’ govt has done s.f.a for the poorest of all..those ‘knackered’ by shipley/richardson..)
farrars ‘alternative’..is the privatising-hollow-people..(!)
(yeah..right..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 9:33 am
And the fact that you don’t know about the risk employees take on (Risk associated with the responsibility that comes with such a position) shows me you have not.
Um do you know what risk actually is?
How does an All Blacks rugby player take on more risk than say a junior doctor?
How does a graphic designer take on more risk than a security guard?
Risk has nothing to do with getting paid more or less.
And in terms of legal liability it doesn’t matter how much money you are making. What matters is your position in the company.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Back to Jordans post,
Truely worrying that someone could have such an extraordinarily low view of human ability. What is it with socialists that think the majority of people are simply incapable of looking after themselves?
I’m all for support for people who, through no fault of their own, are severely disadvantaged, but to treat almost everyone as so weak they can’t get ahead without the active intervention of the government is rediculous.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Lawyers…
Well looking at Bell Guly:
http://www.bellgully.com/profiles/index.asp
It seems, assuming there’s not a whole lot of females out there called David or Andrew, that about 37/43 of the partners are male.
But I guess that’s just because women are hopeless at law?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 9:43 am
In fact more than rediculous, pathetic.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 9:56 am
I thought Jordans point of view crapped out miserably about the time the Berlin Wall came down. Time to move on I think.
Pascal you are too smart to waste your time on people like rickyjj he’s got a big chip on his shoulder over something.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Pascal you are too smart to waste your time on people like rickyjj he’s got a big chip on his shoulder over something.
Haha oops, I think it got stuck there when I was rifling through the bin
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:04 am
whatever you do rickyjj, don’t call your teddy bear Muhammad this Christmas
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:08 am
rickyjj: How does an All Blacks rugby player take on more risk than say a junior doctor?
How does a graphic designer take on more risk than a security guard?
Now you’re straying across fields. Of course, certain professions attract a higher salary than others. But in your All Black example, consider their active playing career is likely to be around 10 years, while your Junior Doctor will likely be working for 30 to 50 years. Of course, All Blacks have sponsorship deals and so forth, but even those dry up eventually.
But within the same company, same field, the person earning 100K takes on more risk than the person earning 50K. Where does the buck stop when the shit hits the fan? Not with the guy on the shop floor, but with his manager. That’s the person held accountable. He takes the risk.
If our product release is not out on time, I can’t blame the junior developers. The team leader takes the rap and gets to explain why the project was late. He/she is the one taking the risk and responsibility of that position.
As to your lawyer example? It’s laughable. Almost 60% of the senior associates are female. One would expect that with the changing social attitude more and more of them would move into partnership positions. (Considering the length of study and social attitude changes that needed to happen, etc.)
P.S. You can click on the names to check if a person is male or female.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:16 am
rickyjj: I don’t think you really understand this. Companies pay what they need to pay to attract particular talent, but they won’t pay more than that talent is worth to them. So if there are two people in the world who can do a particular job, and one of them will deliver $20 million of value to the company, the other $50 million, you can be pretty sure that the better person is going to require the company to pay them a significant proportion of that $50 million. Whether you think that person works twice or more as hard is irrelevant, they are being paid for the value they bring.
In the real world where most of us live, pay is generally set with reference to what other people doing similar jobs are earning, and with an eye on attrition rates and ability to hire. If you are losing staff to other companies for more money, and having difficulty hiring, you are probably underpaying. If you aren’t losing any staff and having no trouble in recruiting, then you are probably overpaying.
Back on the tax question, most people on $100K or more have a significant performance bonus component. This can be 30% or more of total remuneration. Yes, you have to work harder to get more money. I could easily do the job of someone earning half what I do, and do it in about 6 hours per day. If my take home was basically the same, I’d do that in a flash. I have plenty of other things that I could do with that extra time.
(And before you throw me examples of police or nurses, I could easily do the job of someone at my company who earns half what I do – I know that for a fact because I used to do that job 5 years ago – since my whiteness, maleness and connections didn’t let me fly in to a highly paid job I had to do it the old fashioned way by working my way up. And in my company women get paid more for doing the same job, and get promoted faster. I suspect that is true in most large corporates these days)
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Lawyers – yeah right “Almost 60% of the senior associates are female.”
I would like to know how many female lawyers work in the Family Court ? I believe socialism is a creeping disease that has fatal consequences for New Zealand . Labour don’t know what a conservative common sense right wing is . Yet . Get yourself another one , drink yourself to bliss , try and the reach the bar , coppers , batons , cells , oh drink yourself to bliss then piss Labour . Yaya
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:23 am
But in your All Black example, consider their active playing career is likely to be around 10 years, while your Junior Doctor will likely be working for 30 to 50 years.
The All Blacks don’t earn more because their playing career is short, they earn more because they have rare skills which lots of people enjoy watching. There’s plenty of examples of careers which only have a short time span but which pay pitifully.
But within the same company, same field, the person earning 100K takes on more risk than the person earning 50K. Where does the buck stop when the shit hits the fan? Not with the guy on the shop floor, but with his manager. That’s the person held accountable. He takes the risk.
You know there are companies where the person earning the most in the whole company is not the CEO but a programmer?
And there are plenty of other examples of people with special skills earning more than their so-called superiors.
I’m sure Dan Carter earns more than Richie McCaw, who earned more than Graham Henry. Yet when it comes to accountability Henry is first in line, then McCaw, and then Carter.
If our product release is not out on time, I can’t blame the junior developers. The team leader takes the rap and gets to explain why the project was late. He/she is the one taking the risk and responsibility of that position.
How is that risk? It’s New Zealand – it’s not like they can be fired or sued for not getting the project in on time. Just what is it that they’re risking?
I think you’re confusing risk and responsibility… Yes a team leader has more responsibility, but only in the upper reaches of an organisation does someone take on risk.
As to your lawyer example? It’s laughable. Almost 60% of the senior associates are female. One would expect that with the changing social attitude more and more of them would move into partnership positions. (Considering the length of study and social attitude changes that needed to happen, etc.)
Ooh, senior associates. Um aren’t the partners the ones who make all the money?
Yes one would expect that many of them would move into partnership positions, but we’ll have to wait see… I bet the percentage of female associates 10 years ago was higher than the percentage of female partners today, and history would suggest more men will move on to partnerships than women…
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:34 am
There seems to be a paradigm regarding just how developed a nation is , how big its GNP is per capita, and how generous it can be with its income redistribution before it becomes unsustainable. France LOWERED its retirement age to 55 at about the time NZ RAISED it to 65.
Then, even in wealthier nations like France and Sweden it seems you can overreach with the income redistribution and suddenly discover that the size of the cake to be shared out isn’t going to grow fast enough any more to pay for your committments.
This is what lefties like Jordan Carter fail to get their heads around.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:34 am
I think there is a crisis in the left, which is that are refusing to accept that their drift rightwards no longer quaiifes them as ‘left’ in the old fashioned way it was used. This results in many people occupying a kind of moral high-ground that comes with beigng ‘left-wing’ (ie anti right-wing’) but they fail to acept that they are now closer to the right wing in their attitudes and opnions than they would wish to accept.
Vote:The Third Way has a dodgy provenance as an economic theory, it has equally been used by Mussolini, Peron Balir and Clark, while the tension between trying to balance capitalism and forward thinking ‘socialist’ policies has resulted in a harder right wing attitude towards ploicy-making – by this I mean an attitude of ‘authority is best, and if you don;t like it, then tough luck’. This is apparent in the way the EFB has been formulated and promoted as a ‘we know best’ policy, regardless of how people may feel democratically taht they have a right to oppose it.
Another example of this is the way that Unions are now handf in glove with the oligarchy in New Zealand, and less attentive to workers’ rights thatn they are to the ‘end justifies the means ‘ attitudes of the legislators.
It results in less of the old-fashioned ‘left’ attitudes of debate and vote and more of the old rights attitude of ‘do as we say’.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Companies pay what they need to pay to attract particular talent, but they won’t pay more than that talent is worth to them. So if there are two people in the world who can do a particular job, and one of them will deliver $20 million of value to the company, the other $50 million, you can be pretty sure that the better person is going to require the company to pay them a significant proportion of that $50 million.
Yes I understand this. But chances are that there’s not just one person out there who can give them that $50 million dollar value, and the market works to find where demand meets supply. Increased taxes don’t change this.
Yes, you have to work harder to get more money.
I could easily do the job of someone at my company who earns half what I do – I know that for a fact because I used to do that job 5 years ago
No you don’t have to work harder. Chances are you can do that job easily now because you learned how to do it, and five years on you have increased skills and knowledge.
since my whiteness, maleness and connections didn’t let me fly in to a highly paid job I had to do it the old fashioned way by working my way up
I didn’t say people get good jobs because they are white and male – I think people get good jobs through talent and hard work. But if you take a group of talented hard-workers it’s kind of been shown the white male is more likely to get the job.
And in my company women get paid more for doing the same job, and get promoted faster. I suspect that is true in most large corporates these days
Ooh yeah, remember how Telecom used to have a female CEO? Women get everything on a plate these days!
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:36 am
rickyjj
What if I was 50 times better than most who do the same job as as I do?
With respect that (as far as I can see) is the fatal flaw in your argument, if I was only going to be paid say 10 time more than the rest why on earth would I work 50 times harder?
That sort of mind set results in a society where nobody is encouraged to achieve (a bit like current day NZ really), the best are simply going to go overseas where they can be rewarded for their skill and expertise.
If your idea is ever going to work it would rely on 100% participation, that means no unemployment benefit (where would the money come from to run the dole?) no DPB and no welfare.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:37 am
rickyjj: There’s plenty of examples of careers which only have a short time span but which pay pitifully.
Name 10 along a similar vein?
And there are plenty of other examples of people with special skills earning more than their so-called superiors.
Always exceptions, agreed. That is not however the general case. If you are intending to use a few exceptional cases to prove that it is that way generally, you’re more of a fool than you seem to be.
I think you’re confusing risk and responsibility… Yes a team leader has more responsibility, but only in the upper reaches of an organisation does someone take on risk.
No, I think you do not understand that with the additional responsibility comes additional risk. And not just in the upper reaches. One does not get the perks without taking the pain as well.
In none of the companies I’ve worked in for the last … 13 years … has it been any different.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:39 am
And what Karl Marx himself completely missed was the power of INCENTIVES on human behaviour. It is funny that he and his followers assume that human altruism can be perfected under a system of imposed egalitarianism, yet they utterly deny that persons in a free situation might be able to act altruistically at all.
It’s a nice change, Farrar, to see you going in to battle on IDEAS. Now how about freedom of speech as an ABSOLUTE principle? Forget bickering with Helen over the detail of spending limits and time limits.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:41 am
What if I was 50 times better than most who do the same job as as I do?
Then I don’t have a problem with you earning 50 times more. Sales would be a great example of this. I’d probably wonder why the people 50 times worse than you were continuing to be paid…
With respect that (as far as I can see) is the fatal flaw in your argument, if I was only going to be paid say 10 time more than the rest why on earth would I work 50 times harder?
You’re not working 50 times harder than them are you? I thought you were great at your job? That generally implies you need less effort for the same result…
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Jordan is merely articulating the ideology that all leftists hold dear. There is not a problem that cannot be solved by increasing taxes, expanding regulation and increasing the size of government. This is the leftists’ religion, and they preach it fervently, and attempt to convert everyone to their faith, or impose their religion upon those that cannot be converted, and ostracise those who openly challenge it.
As long as unbelievers allow them to, Jordan and his disciples will continue upon their way. The more we succumb to their evangelism, the more enthusiastically they will pursue their objectives, for there is no end to what leftists want. There is no real compromise. There is no finishing point. Jordan and his fellow believers will never be content until they control every facet of our lives, control every cent we earn and spend, control everything we read, everything we say and everything we do, and even when the reach that point of total control, they will still want more.
They are a plague upon the civilized world. Those of us who want relief from the socialists/ Marxists have to fight harder, for they are winning. They are winning because they have studied Gramsci and others who have taught them the value of slow and gradual change. That is why, no matter how small the change appears, it must be challenged and refused. Unless one realizes the thinking behind socialism, and understands its strategies, one cannot succeed in defeating it.
Compromise is always where the left win, for they will eventually return and demand further compromise. They must be turned away, but more, they must be turned back. Jordan’s little outburst is proof of what the left really want, and a glimpse into the future that will arise if they remain supreme, and if through apathy and unrealising ignorance, we let them remain supreme.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:41 am
The point ricky makes that buyers in the labour market will end up paying more for skills when those skills are in short supply of of course correct, where socialism falls over is that it believes that this law of supply and demand can be ignored or sidestepped.
Agree with Phil’s perceptive comment above, it’s along the lines of something I keep saying; as technology allows countries to become wealthier those countries move towards socialism.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:47 am
“How is that risk? It’s New Zealand – it’s not like they can be fired or sued for not getting the project in on time. Just what is it that they’re risking”
…..Their own livelihood!.
It’s precisely because it is NZ that it’s a risk. Our business communities are small and word travels fast. That’s even more true in the IT community. You screw a project up or get a big decision wrong and that’s going to hurt when looking for the next piece of work.
Moreover, that risk increases precisely because you are seeking work that is more ‘interesting’ – that is, more challenging, more difficult. In turn that means more chances of stuffing up, and doing so in a more obvious manner.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Name 10 along a similar vein?
Most other sports.
Many types of entertainment, like music and acting.
Anything involving children obviously.
Jobs involving high levels of physical fitness.
There’s way more than 10 if you look at individual professions rather than areas, which I can do if you want me to…
Always exceptions, agreed. That is not however the general case. If you are intending to use a few exceptional cases to prove that it is that way generally, you’re more of a fool than you seem to be.
Yes they’re exceptions, but that’s besides the point. Where is an example of a person who’s in a higher position yet has less responsibility?
My point was that responsibility is linked to position, not pay, and to refute that you need an example where a higher position has less responsibility.
No, I think you do not understand that with the additional responsibility comes additional risk. And not just in the upper reaches. One does not get the perks without taking the pain as well.
Can you give me an example of this risk? Where’s the pain for a team leader who finishes a project late?
In none of the companies I’ve worked in for the last … 13 years … has it been any different.
13 years! Wow. National should kick John Key out and put you in as leader.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:51 am
rickyjj
So are you saying that in your world effort would be rewarded rather than achievement?
Vote:I was once told by an employer of mine that in business E is for effort and A for achievement, that saying is as true today as it was all those years ago.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:53 am
…..Their own livelihood!. It’s precisely because it is NZ that it’s a risk. Our business communities are small and word travels fast. That’s even more true in the IT community. You screw a project up or get a big decision wrong and that’s going to hurt when looking for the next piece of work.
I’m not convinced. There seem to be a hell of a lot of people out there who have made major stuff-ups and yet are now in higher positions then they were then…
NZers seem to be quite good at realising that everybody makes mistakes, even a little too lenient some would argue.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Excuse me rickyjj – what was the income % difference between average kiwi’s and the average Australian , whats it 30% . Oh yes . Really . Who said socialism shares wealth ? Was it Stalin or Marx ?? Whatever eh – pull the other one it plays dizzy communist jingle bells .
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:56 am
So are you saying that in your world effort would be rewarded rather than achievement? I was once told by an employer of mine that in business E is for effort and A for achievement, that saying is as true today as it was all those years ago.
Nope, I totally agree with your employer – it’s not how hard you work but the results which count.
That’s why people tend to be paid more as their careers progress – their increased skills and experience, as well as making them rarer commodities, make them more productive.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 11:07 am
rickyjj: And while I’m at it, I also hate the “higher taxes mean less incentive to get ahead”…
Working For Families + 60K tax bracket. The step up into the higher tax bracket means less incentive to get ahead, as stepping up into it will lose you your welfare payment.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 11:09 am
rickyjj: I’m not convinced
That’s your choice. You’ve had people speaking from experience tell you differently. You can continue to denigrate them (Only 13 years comment) or accept that even in such a span of time they might have learned a thing or two.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Andrew W., have you read “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” by Joseph Schumpeter? A CLASSIC work, from the 1940′s, that says exactly what you are saying, and predicts a whole lot more that is happening today.
Redbaiter, it is a nice change to see SOMEONE ELSE aware of the theories of Gramsci and Co being pursued by the Left. If only Wishart or someone would write a controversial book about it, or something else, to wake up all the dupes out there. Some on the left KNOW what they are doing, but there are a lot of dupes that could be woken up.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Reuben P. Chapple did an excellent article, now on Muriel Newman’s website, about how the Gramsci program has led indirectly to Tuhoe separatism in NZ. So he’s another rare example of somebody who’s awake.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Rickjj: “It can only be achieved with strong public services, carefully regulated labour markets, generous welfare states and the substantive promotion of political, social, economic and cultural rights.
The main problem with this old-Left view is that it is increasingly out of synch with the modern world. The first job I had was as a programmer with the good old NZ Dairy Board. My parents, both with vivid memories of the Great Depression, were happy about this. A good steady job at pay that was comparable to what they knew of other types of work and secure.
They were less than happy when I dumped the job 18 months later because I had grown bored with it and more than a little pissed off at the internal carefully regulated labour market” of the NZDB – an environment in which I had moved from ‘Programmer Level 3C’ to ‘3A’ or some such bullshit, with the attendent small upward movement in the graded pay scale. All of this being an accurate reflection of how NZ worked at the time.
Well, screw all that! I wanted to make lots of money, and I did not want my 10-12 hour days and my invention of faster ways of programming to garner no more money (or promotions) than the people who clocked in from 9 till 5 and who went with the flow! Not to mention the bloody marginal taxes that went to Muldoon and co.
My parent’s just could not understand my quitting this job. I’m sure that they thought I would be there for at least ten years, maybe for life. They could not see that the skills were transferrable across companies and even industries (and nations). As a result they did not understand the economic revolution that would soon sweep the country. Their attitude (and they were farmers) was similar to that of Jordan, except they thought they had already built this wonderful society. Cosy. Secure. Safe. Why would anybody not want to be part of that?
The problem with their model (and Jordan’s) is that it worked for the slow-moving, stratified world of the old industrial revolution. Closely defined, limited jobs like tightening nuts on an assembly line. Jobs that could be done by almost anybody, perhaps with a little on-the-job training. Jobs that changed very little between years or even decades. For that world all the stuff about unions and collective wage bargaining and the rest could work. Even the fact that it required a lock-down of other aspects of society, such as Sunday shopping, was okay because conservative (right and left-wing) NZ bought into that view of glacial societal change.
But nowadays? This is where AndrewW’s comment comes in:
”as technology allows countries to become wealthier those countries move towards socialism.”
I can see that argument being made and it could lead to such things as a future right-wing government offering an idea originating (I think) from the Anarchist movement – the Living Income – where everybody is simply guranteed some minimum income that they can live on and doing away with all the tax/tax-credit (WFF) and other support nonsense. Or perhaps there are other ‘new’ ideas for a societal model that can take advantage of the advances in science and technology.
However, if the attitude of the left remains Jodanesque – Socialism as it has been understood over the last hundred years – then I think that technology will simply collapse that imposed model. In fact it probably already has. My personal example of IT work might have been the work exception 20-30 years ago. But as society has moved more towards a services-based economy other industries and careers and jobs have appeared that have very similar characteristics. Inventiveness, creativity with information at the lowest levels of a business is increasingly what is wanted by both businesses and employees – and that brings all the similar transferable abilities that I’ve had in IT!
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Damn – that first quote is from Jordan Carter of course!
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Oh Dear How guilty I feel to be a pale male and stale successful in my chosen profession and paying large amounts of my income to the State.
Having helped with my wife raise two children who are themselves now successful in their chosen careers and paying large amounts of their income to the State.
I realise how bad we are as a family that we should be sooooooo selfish and so utterly disgraceful that Jordan and his fellow travellers should regard us with such disgust.
NOT. Get over it losers What a bunch of tossers and wankers you are.
LOL at you and the pathetic handwringing that you indulge in.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
“Jordan is merely articulating the ideology that all leftists hold dear. There is not a problem that cannot be solved by increasing taxes, expanding regulation and increasing the size of government.”
This is the exact ideology that hinges both sides of parliament.
This is why I know John Key will NOT do away with the EFB given the opportunity. for a start he definitely will not down size parliament.
Great pity, because that would be a huge signifier that National is leading by example. He would gain the electorates confidence a thousand fold.
He will simply initiate token tax cuts to placate the masses and if he’s in a realy good mood bring back section 59. I strongly question that also as no country in the world has re-allowed child smacking after banning it.
Oh,, but you think John is different. And if it was up to him he would make every one happy. But its not.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Phil, I had never even heard of Schumpeter.
Vote:I’ve just read his Wiki bio and see plenty there that I agree with, so I went to Amazon and ordered “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy”.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
There’s something weird about a thread in which I find myself in simultaneous partial agreement with Jordan, phil u and Redbaiter :-/ (oh, and Pascal).
On many issues of substance there is “less than a cigarette paper’s difference” between parties who’d claim to be liberal / conservative and those who’d claim to be socialist.
As parties abandon principle in a stampede from blue or red to beige in a cynical effort to simply capture votes, the range of policy choices (and philosophical viewpoints of the kind advanced in this very thread) disappear from public debate.
I too wish the socialists would preach socialism, which is pretty much as Jordan describes it. And that the capitalists would come out in full-throated support of capitalism, and so on.
If that were so, MMP might actually work, as we’d end up with a number of parties all espousing different policies based on strongly-held beliefs, not parroting soundbites crafted on the basis of focus groups, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Looks like you agree withSchumpeter too Rex:
(from wiki)
Vote:Schumpeter and democratic theory
In the same book, Schumpeter expounded a theory of democracy which sought to challenge what he called the ‘classical doctrine’. He disputed the idea that democracy was a process by which the electorate identified the common good, and politicians carried this out for them. He argued this was unrealistic, and that people’s ignorance and superficiality meant that in fact they were largely manipulated by politicians, who set the agenda. This made a ‘rule by the people’ concept both unlikely and undesirable. Instead he advocated a minimalist model, much influenced by Max Weber, whereby democracy is the mechanism for competition between leaders, much like a market structure. Although periodical votes from the general public legitimize governments and keep them accountable, the policy program is very much seen as their own and not that of the people, and the participatory role for individuals is severely limited.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
“I too wish the socialists would preach socialism, which is pretty much as Jordan describes it. And that the capitalists would come out in full-throated support of capitalism, and so on.”
Isn’t this the true evolution of modern politics though. No real distinctions. Just a meshing of personalities as real issues get blurred and the masses squabble over personalities instead of policiy
In fact, was the Mallard/Henare debacle just a sophisticated wwf wrestling performance.
Has the Beehive just become a staged choreograghed play fight.
Are the polictico’s joining the police in huge orgies after hours and is Helen deflecting that with her comments on adults personal lives.
What ever, but there is definitely no B?w in politics any more, just a huge merged gray. And if John Key does not keep to his talk of dealing with section 59 and the EFB this will become more apparent until this country is simply streamlined into a dictatorship.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Since we’re mentioning Schumpter you all might be interested in this review of a recent biography of the man – Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction:
http://www.powells.com/review/2007_07_12
With regards to his views on democracy the following quote is probably appropriate:
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
McCraw ignores the fact that in the 60 years since World War II, throughout the Western world the state sector has steadily grown, and it’s actually a trend that is hundreds of years old.
But as long as society has a steady supply of resources to draw on, and technology gives us the ability to utilise those resources to create ever greater wealth, the situation is stable.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I don’t entirely agree with McCraw’s assessment either because his empirical example of “sixty years and counting since World War II.” does not fully cover the steady acceleration of those trends I wrote about earlier.
They are trends that emerge directly from Schumpter’s theory and they are wreaking havoc on traditional Socialist models of business-government interaction, in the sense that business is leaving government behind more and more on a global level: it’s still difficult to effect such escapes within nations of course.
However, it seems to me that these global effects will cause a tipping point to be reached on the growth of the state sooner or later, at least in terms of the proportion of the economy the state takes up. The need of Socialism to slow everything down in practice (especially that nasty ‘creative destruction’ stuff) will increasingly be the self-limiting factor. Unfortunately tipping points tend to be destructive – witness our health system.
But I think McCraw is correct in stating that Schumpter was overly pessimistic about democracy and, like many intellectuals (Kennan being another classic example), had a low opinion of people.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Alas, Jord and Marx will always be one step behind fleeing capital.
Socialists planning bigger theft will need to have currency controls in place well in advance.
It certainly has got me doing a long overdue analysis on the wealth tax risks of holding illiquid assets in NZ.
Thanks Jord.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
err are these “generous” and “equality” enough for you Jordan? some taken from a converstion recently with a person who experienced it
- unemployed couple on more than the median wage
- solo mum on more than them and still gets “supplementary benifits” to buy new baby clothes while the couple cannot afford new clothes for themselves
- said unemployed person gets paid to go to university while our A+ kids have to take out a $50K loan
- solo mum goes to uni for free too
- compensation for prisoners but not for victims of crime
- letting of 1000s of people with up to $40K loans
- – married man above asks not to be given a bonus because he will lose it all in lost benefit entitlements
- thereby keeping everyone down there on low wages
- median wage overtakes median self employed income
- HC low rent never included as part of base rate when spinning income statistics to the public
We have a very generous wealth distributing state – and he wonders why we consider them hard left???
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
“the situation is stable.”
WTF is the point of that? Things could be “stable” with or without socialism. That’s hardly any justification for retarding the growth of civilization for decades, creating undue poverty, stifling initiative and attacking freedom. Stability is not the objective. The betterment of the human condition is the real goal.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
aye, what Redbaiter said at 10:41.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Red, it means that an argument could be made that if in the future those resources are less available, the size of government that we have now would be too much for poorer productive sectors to support, that would be unstable.
Historically government in the West has been smaller than now because less technology and hence less wealth would have meant that bigger government would have unsupportable by the productive sectors back then.
Another way of putting it is big governments in poor countries are unstable.
I’m off for the weekend now so feel free to abuse me while I’m gone.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
“Another way of putting it is big governments in poor countries are unstable.”
You’re trying to make it sound like we’re a big wealthy country able to afford huge bureaucracy.
That is the biggest socialist lie there is.
The bureacracy has been created to stifle wealth and create huge expenditure. A middle school student would surmise that immediately.
We are simply not the above description. This is why it is wrong for politico’s to continually compare us to Aus. There’s no comparison at all.
Just this week, tram fares rising by 20 cents next year made news over there. Thats the power of population. An extra 20 cents provokes media attn and will rake in millions. How can we compare ourselves to that???
Your idea of us advancing into the 20th century capable of supporting more sophisticated bureaucracy is not only flawed it is obscene.
This ideology should be objectionable to all censorship boards as completely irelevant, lewd and unsuitable for human consumption.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
“I do not accept that current Labour politics – in the UK, or in New Zealand, or in Australia or anywhere else – gives enough substance to this drive to equality”.
And where will Jordan’s drive to equality take us…further down the OECD to a point where were are all equally poverty stricken?
strong public service, carefully regulated labour market, generous welfare states and the substantive promotion of political, social, economic and cultural rights…platitudinous babble for certain failure.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
“platitudinous babble for certain failure.”
Helens campaign speeches are certainly going to be nothing but babbling platitudes.
Much the same as Jenny Shipleys campaign. Hoew she had curbed the Asian crisis. No one knew there had been an Asian crisis. and how National had beaten the Y2K scare. It was totally manufactured.
Platitudes, platitudes, platitudes.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
There was an Asian currency crisis alright, ask the Malaysians.
It seems if the masses don’t see it… the tree didn’t fall in the forest.
So ages hence, the art of politics will be to let the masses feel the heat of the red hot poker first…..so they’ll appreciate being saved.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
It’s no wonder Helen Clarks been compared to Sir Robert Muldoon. Labour out of the next election unless NZ First props them up again.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
“In a Brussels tapas bar last weekend”
Vote:are tapas the new chardonnay?
November 30th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
No, tapas are the new hors d’œuvre – silly little bits of finger food for pretentious people.
“Tapas – because it’s hard to talk bullshit when you’re chewing on a steak”
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
there are some in here who need to be staked down and have their twisted
lie spewing mouths filled with steak.
Fortunately they are a minority,,, of one.
very managable
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
i know what tapas are!
Vote:my question was more related to the irony of a socialist sitting in a “Brussels tapas bar” discussing how he could supposedly make life better for the poor people back in NZ
November 30th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Ok,,
we’re thread jacked and talking tapa’s now. They’ve peaked my curiosity as DPF did with black berry wine,,,, or something.
My minds going misty,, amI getting hungry or is there a void.
Cacofinix isn’t insulting me, I think he’s hunting my where abouts.
he wants to surprise me and jack ma threads.
Hunger is definitly making me paranoid
He’s fishing for white bait in the Sth Is….. or so he says….
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Unbelievable mental illness hinamanu . Thank you for the support emails off group regarding this insane crackpot ?
Very interesting case study ,, indeed,,,
Vote:December 1st, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Tom Hunter, obviously a leftwing review of Schumpeter’s book. It is well worth reading. Leftwingers will enjoy his prognosis that Capitalism would eventually provide the ultimate fertile grounds for socialism, via a different route envisaged by Karl Marx. Irrespective of the beliefs of the man himself, he comments frequently that he is advancing his prognosis not as either condoning or disparaging, but as a matter of dispassionate “science”.
I have read the book more than once. It is fascinating, and I flatly disagree with the above reviewers comment that Schumpeter was “in error” about Democracy tending in the long run to return governments inimical to Capitalism. Schumpeter referred to “unfettered capitalism” and to “capitalism in fetters”. The trends over the last few decades, of the wealthiest countries becoming increasingly welfarist and suffering growth stagnation and looming fiscal crises as future predicted taxation revenue ceases to be adequate to cover future predicted welfare costs, tends to prove Schumpeter right, not wrong. Another thing he is right about is that wealthy people will increasingly lose their objection to socialism and many in fact will become strong supporters of it.
A “must-read” book, along with Hayek: “The Road To Serfdom” and Friedman “Free to Choose”.
Vote:December 1st, 2007 at 3:46 pm
You mention arbitrary talent. Talent is no use without hard work. The trouble is socialist equality is achieved usually by dragging down the hard workers and giving to those who don’t make enough effort.
Vote:December 2nd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Allocation of money is not just an allocation of reward – it is also an allocation of power. One of the things that capitalism does achieve is to make sure that savers, smart investors etc end up in control of a disproportionate amount of countries assets and thus utilize those assets in more value adding ways.
It doesn’t always work out that way but few would deny that warren buffet is better at allocation a few tens of billion dollars to productive investments than your average hobo. In that regard inequality makes the pie bigger even ignoring the incentives.
Vote:December 2nd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
hinamanu, Phil’s description of Schumpeter’s view that the growth of socialism in wealthier democracies is a good summary of my argument, as he said it’s a matter of dispassionate “science” the growth of socialism is certainly not something I’m an advocate of.
Vote:December 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 am
Quite so, Schumpeter outlined a very strong case for the eventual victory of Socialism, in a way that, as he said, a Doctor might diagnose the state of a patient. He actually writes in a very values-neutral fashion, and it is hard to detect that he himself is an old-fashioned conservative.
Vote: