Living Wage to drop by $1.50!

January 30th, 2014 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

The so called is calculated by Rev Waldegrave as the amount a family with two children needs to live on, taking into account current welfare payments.

If Labour’s baby bribe gets implemented this will pay $60 a week to some families with an under three. That is $1.50 per hour, so hence the living wage drops from $18.40 to $16.90 an hour. Hooray.

Will those City Councils that have vowed to introduce the living wage, set it at $16.90 an hour instead of $18.40 an hour if Labour win?

Tags:

30 Responses to “Living Wage to drop by $1.50!”

  1. burt (7,425 comments) says:

    DPF

    You seem to have forgotten that the additional cost of using a US proxy to access Facebook will push it back up when Labour ban access via NZ ISP’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    If Labour’s baby bribe gets implemented this will pay $60 a week to some families with an under three.

    You seem to have ignored the fact that there’s already a parental tax credit of $1200. But I am bemused that you now support Labour’s policy of a baby bonus. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. burt (7,425 comments) says:

    ross69

    Buying votes with other peoples money is such great policy and guaranteed to end in recession with falling productivity like it has every time Labour has been in office – naturally everyone supports such fine policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Kea (13,559 comments) says:

    so hence the living wage drops from $18.40 to $16.90 an hour. Hooray.

    “Hooray” you miserable bugger DPF :(

    I wish we could find a middle way between communism and that ruthless approach. I think National do a pretty good job of it and that is why they are in power. It is not all or nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. emmess (1,398 comments) says:

    No, the living wage will have to be set at around $77 per hour because one of the stated aims is to pay people enough so they don’t have to claim welfare.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. OneTrack (3,360 comments) says:

    “Will those City Councils that have vowed to introduce the living wage, set it at $16.90 an hour ”

    No, because 16 year old school leavers with no dependents “need” $18.40 an hour.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. thePeoplesFlag (283 comments) says:

    It has taken five days for the National party research unit to come up with that? Truly, the mountain moaned, and gave forth a mouse.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. burt (7,425 comments) says:

    thePeoplesFlag

    I think the research unit got bogged down working out which version of the policy was the real one – the one as described by Labour, as handed out by Labour to journalists or the one on their web shite.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. KiwiGreg (3,278 comments) says:

    I think you are obsessing over this DPF to the point of losing your rationality.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. wreck1080 (3,999 comments) says:

    Tough for aucklanders in any case now that Auck house prices are more expensive than melbourne and sydney.

    Even more amazing when you consider our wages are much lower than our aussie cuzzies.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ExtremeRightisright (23 comments) says:

    Abolish Minimum wage. The miserable wretched plebs can get the $5 per hour they deserve. Abolish welfare. Personal responsibility people!!! Safety nets are for losers and no hopers. No such thing as bad luck.
    If your poor, dont have children.

    Taxs cut for those earning $100000 gross please- lower it to 10%.

    Corporate taxes abolished please.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ExtremeRightisright (23 comments) says:

    Tax cuts for the wealthy please.

    Dont worry poor little plebs- just wait for the trickle down effect to take place.

    The urine trickling down from our ivory towers you uncivilized moronic workers as we piss all over you! Muhuhahahahahaha!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    DPF, I presume you are just taking the piss of a particular wage level providing for the needs of all types of families – when we have AS, family tax credits, IWTC, and now the temporary while the child is under 3 payment – rather than making a serious comment.

    As I have said before a living wage would be one providing for a single adult to live in the urban area in a one bedroom flat – this being subsidised by the level of AS available in that urban area. If those on the MW are struggling in that urban area then there can either be a higher living wage than the MW in that area or the AS for that urban areas be set higher than it is nationwide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Swifty (26 comments) says:

    ExtremeRightisright – you’re doing yourself and your views no favours here tonight.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    Would the person who downticked my comment care to discuss the higher AS rate that applies in Auckland or are they unaware of its existence.

    http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/statistical-report/statistical-report-2008/supplementary-benefits/payment-rates.html

    Educate yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. martinh (1,272 comments) says:

    SPC it wasnt me

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    As I have said before a living wage would be one providing for a single adult to live in the urban area in a one bedroom flat

    But it’s not. It’s calculated on a 2 adult, 2 child household. So, as you have just pointed out (albeit you may not realize it), the Living Wage is incorrect for a single adult in a one bedroom flat.

    Now if only the councils could grasp that simple fact perhaps they wouldn’t be pledging large amounts of unbudgeted ratepayer money for people that the Living Wage was not determined for.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    What needs to occur in Christchurch is an increase in AS rate from $120 to $165 per week the level it is in Wellington now that rents are the same (and Canterbury pay levels are lower). This is still lower than the $240 rate of Auckland.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/your-property/9089371/Rental-market-near-breaking-point

    https://www.facebook.com/RaiseTheAccommodationSupplementInChch

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    bhudson, the argument of DPF is that no one rate provides for all circumstances – we have tax credits and the AS to take account of the differences. It is not unreasonable, given our separate support for family circumstance

    I have noted that if there is a rate it has to be based on a constant such as the living cost of an adult in a one bedroom flat.

    Overseas the living wage is promoted as that necessary in higher cost urban areas, but here we have the AS at variable rates to take account of that.

    That said if the MW plus AS was not enough then a local area might consider calling for a higher AS rate or put in place a public transport subsidy for those on low incomes – as paying its own employees more does not help the low waged of other employers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Kea (13,559 comments) says:

    SPC, are you retarded tonight ?

    If you pay people more who live in Auckland, to offset accommodation costs, then you will increase accommodation costs ! You will also increase other costs and transport problems. You are using other peoples money to keep prices higher than the market would have set them, left to its own devices. FFS !

    If anything they should pay people more to NOT live in Auckland. Then they may choose to move into other less congested cities and save the country money. As demand eases in Auckland, so will prices.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    Kea, can you not read the link?

    It is current government to provide a $240 a week AS rate for Auckland now. The rate in Christchurch is $120 a week yet rents are the same as in the $165 a week area of Wellington.

    Educate yourself …

    A shortage results in higher prices …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    One can only imagine the impact of tens of thousands of Aucklanders leaving their jobs and homes to live in other areas without homes or jobs because they cannot afford to live where their work is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kea (13,559 comments) says:

    SPC, thanks for answering my first question ;)

    Market rents are not decided by anyone factor. AS are just a contributing factor.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    Kea, rents did not go up when the AS went up in 2008, in response to rising rents earlier.

    They have gone up since over more recent times as a shortage developed after the GFC (stopped finance to housing supply).

    Rents re going up in Christchurch while the AS stays at $120 a week. loss of supply and inflow of workers.

    Once again the facts and Kea are on different planets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Kea (13,559 comments) says:

    SPC, Oh I see now… the government pouring millions of dollars of other peoples money into the housing market has no effect at all on prices.

    Wow. You should write a paper on your findings, explaining how the availability of money has NO effect on prices.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    Kea, I realise you are only on KB because you enjoy provoking anyone who thinks there is any value to debating issues online. Identify what moves posters and then attack this as weakness to kick them around with. A troll. You play the tribal card when it suits and then attack tribalism in turn when that suits the needs of trolling.

    Here you stroke the prejudices of those on the right on this (bored because there is no one on GD to provoke with stuff on climate or religion?), who just don’t like anything being done to help poor people because they are the political enemy who vote differently.

    1. those opposed to employers being required to pay higher wages to low wage workers so they can meet their living costs and yet also
    2. opposed to the the provision of rent subsidy to the low waged in areas where rent is high …

    Their answer is to wait until the market corrects itself and housing is again affordable. And have families overcrowd and have regional health and the schools deal with the consequences.

    But boo hoo to you, as your chosen government is paying the higher AS for Auckland and has done for all of its term. Why? Because they realise it does not create higher rents it only allows people to afford them. It began in 2008 but rents did not increase afterwards. Years went by before the more recent rise in rent, but the AS has not risen since 2008 so is not the cause.

    In Christchurch the AS has stayed at $120 and rents have increased a lot since because of loss of supply and new workers coming in. AS has played no part.

    Is the government wrong to say lack of supply is the issue to shortage leading to rising house prices, as they do to explain their housing policy?

    The question is why they care to support families in Auckland with their house prices more than those in Christchurch, despite need not being met in the south.

    This is inexplicable and the government should give a compelling reason why. It would otherwise seem that they are not a government for all New Zealanders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. burt (7,425 comments) says:

    I find it very interesting that the accommodation supplement is higher in Auckland. I think it shouldn’t be, perhaps if it wasn’t there wouldn’t be such a large supply of low income workers keeping wages low. Perverse unintended consequences always result from such distortions.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. burt (7,425 comments) says:

    SPC

    In the context of Christchurch I share your dismay with the AS being higher in Auckland. However, IMHO there should be one rate. There aren’t separate income tax rates and thresholds for Auckland. Probably just as well, they would be lower to allow for the extra cost of living in Auckland.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    Yeah sure burt. I am sure if workers did not have to be where the jobs were they could live in cheaper areas where there were no jobs. Then they would only come into Auckland if the MW job pay was bumped up to the median wage so they could afford to live there.

    Or otherwise wait until there was a housing surplus and the market collapsed, happy days banks and RB, then returned able to live on the MW and still afford to pay rent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    burt 11.52pm, this is why there is a living wage debate because the cost of living is different in each area. The variables are usually mainly housing and transport (though can be power in colder areas, and some areas cases higher food prices because of distribution costs).

    London has the living wage, but we have till now used the variable AS, rather than have a living wage. And of course variable family costs are better met by tax credits than wage rate. This is the context in which the “left’s campaign for the living wage is flawed and criticsm from DPF has some merit.

    But if we use the AS, then it must be on a consistent basis. If we do not have variable AS then the alternative is the higher living wage in higher cost urban centres.

    I think the variable AS is more flexible – for example the rise in Christchurch rents may be temporary but they still need an increase in AS, if only for a time and not permanently. I think from $120 to the Wellington rate of $165 is about right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote