OnPoint: Two wallops of wonk, with a side of waffle
119 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Keith: "3,700 jobs isn't something to be pooh-poohed at."
3700 jobs at $2.50 an hour *is* something to be pooh-poohed at. If you want to have a real effect, you've got to spend real money.
The true question is: will the govt spend a significant % of GDP on economic stimulus. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of combatting a depression by use of massive govt projects that create jobs building long-term infrastructure. But if so it's going to cost real money: a significant % of GDP. If they are willing to, then they can select projects on basis of best long-term benefits (and a cycleway might make the list).
But starting with someone's hobby project at this talkfest isn't policy-making - it's populist carnival politicking. You're not at a policy conference. You're at a show.
-
Eddie: cherry-picking simply demonstrates your own intellectual dishonesty.
So does making generalisations and getting pissy when someone points out that they're not true, Idiot/Savant. By the way, I thought the "community sector" were having their own little closed-door elitist gab-fest today?
-
"Keith, is there been any comments from the PM about the role of innovation, entrepreneurship and R&D at the job summit?"
I'm sure the PM will talk about how important innovation, entrepreneurship and R&D are. So what? He has talked that way before. He just has never match his govt's actions to his fine words in any meaningful way.
I'm an IT entrepreneur: I (and others) own one of those little (but growing!) export-focussed R&D companies. The National govt's biggest change to business taxes so far was to get rid of the R&D tax credits, thus increasing significantly the amount of tax paid by innovative R&D companies and scaring off venture capital from small IT entrepreneurs. We aren't farmers or big foreign-owned companies, so we don't get much respect from this govt. Given what I've seen so far I'd be gobsmacked if this govt now started taking us guys seriously now given how badly they've treated us so far.
-
I thought the "community sector" were having their own little closed-door elitist gab-fest today?
Ignoring the characterisation, I note that they met a few days ago.
-
Ignoring the characterisation, I note that they met a few days ago.
Thanks , I note from your note that it seemed a very open discussion for anyone to read up on also. :)
-
they met a few days ago
There was a bit of grumbling in the sector (including myself) that because there was only a tiny budget for this meeting, they could only invite 60 people from the hundreds who would have liked to attend. Which, on the positive side, shows a huge interest in having an effective and collegial sector.
-
Ignoring the characterisation, I note that they met a few days ago.
Please do, Sacha. Just as I'm sure Andrew Little wouldn't take much notice of anyone who would characterise him as a VRWC beard. I'm rather sceptical about how useful either gathering really will be, but it's not something that's stimulating my bile ducts either.
-
You have ducts?
-
BTW, has David Slack been invited to discuss his plan for a trans-Waitemata harbour transparent tube travelator link?
.....
(Precise figures always make it look as if you thought about it).That's probably why I never get asked to elaborate. I generally round things to the nearest billion.
I actually went to mention the travelator up-thread but then the phone rang.
There it goes again.
-
By the way, Sacha, to belatedly reply to your message in another thread, the Tryathlon was great fun, but went far longer than I expected. Genuinely intended to be back in Warkworth. If you still feel inclined to send over that stuff, I'd be glad to receive it.
-
No-one else seems to have said the obviously ultra-cynical point, so I thought I would:
A govt is elected with some of its MPs saying privately that they'd love to have some more fundamental reform of the labour market, but that they can't do that because you have to "swallow a few dead rats" to get elected. Four months later they look at the economic news and hold an "emergency job summit" to decide what to do about the labour market. It's a complicated talk-fest with lots and lots of different ideas presented that the govt promises to go away and consider carefully.
What do you think happens next?
-
Which is what happens when you invite only rich business-owners to these sorts of things: complete obliviousness to how it looks from the other end.
The unions were at the conference, too. Out in force, in fact.
-
My estimate is based on the concept that if a firm has 10 workers, they need 100 person days of work a fortnight to keep them productively occupied.
If sales only allow for 90 person days, then they would normally need to lose a worker.
If instead they put the whole place on a 9 day fortnight, then everyone is fully occupied again.
This doesn't allow for fixed costs, though.
Oh, of course. That makes sense.
However, it's not quite that responsive. The suggestion is that the government funds the 10th day *in return for a commitment that there be no redundancies for a certain period*. So they get a one-off 10% reduction in labour costs, but then they're stuck with that cost, even if, say, their revenue falls 30%.
-
Keith, is there been any comments from the PM about the role of innovation, entrepreneurship and R&D at the job summit?
Like what? That it's O for oarsome? 8-)
Sorry, just mean that innovation and entrepreneurship doesn't come from prime minsterial edict, and that talking about it, or demanding that there be more of it doesn't really do anyone any good.
-
It is if they pay third-world wages. $2.50 an hour? Is that the fat-cats future vision of New Zealand?
I think it's a bit premature to use those back of a napkin figures to construde wages. The 3,700 jobs figure (probably) doesn't mean that they'll hire 3,700 burly men with shovels and pickaxes. It's "will provide 3700 new jobs", which (probably) counts all the cafe owners and backpacker operators who'll set up on the trail, plus some magical credit-creation multiplier which will generate positions for 30 new telephone hygenists and calligraphy consultants "downstream".
-
And if you put three experts on economic stimulus in a room, you'll get three totally different solutions to the problem, all of which will contradict. How many people are at the summit?
Heh, depends on what you mean by contradict. The three opinions that you're likely to get are: 1) We need to spend money on everything. 2) We need to spend more than that. 3) We need to do both.
-
I'm completely underwhelmed by the results of the 'do-fest.' If the government's going into the business of make work schemes, surely there are endless opportunities to address actual issues that are already plaguing the country, rather than making sh*t up?
One example (and my particular concern) is the natural environment, where New Zealand is sadly a front runner in the global extinction crisis.
Surely the Minister of Tourism of all people is aware that New Zealand's treasured 'Clean Green' image is wearing very thin indeed? The country is barely managing its commitments under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity through the NZ Biodiversity Strategy, so how about some action and serious government investment to sort that out? Conservation initiatives like pest control and restoration are labour intensive, so wouldn't they be a starter to create jobs? What about investment and innovation in to actually reducing energy use and carbon pollution, rather than wasting time figuring out how to make the most of them as conceptual trading opportunities?
While I can appreciate David's enthusiasm for a national cycleway, the project is essentially a long, very narrow road, that can only create work in a sector which AFAIK is already stretched to capacity.
It's time this government got over it's allergy to environmental issues, realised the country (and planet) is not an infinite resource, and got serious about looking after them - and creating the jobs to achieve some real change.
No doubt PA readers with more social concerns can also think of many other areas that need attention, and could use more people working in them.
</rant>
-
Following on from Alastair, today's Dom had a depressing piece from James Lovelock, who now believes it's too late to save the world. Europe will be the new Sahara and the world's population will be down to a billion by 2100. Lovelock believes government efforts are wasted on cutting back carbon emissions and "should instead be focussed on creating safe havens in areas that will escape the worst effects of climate change."
I guess that could be us.
As for the politicians and the job summit - how come it's okay for the commoners to be at the mercy of market forces, but dinosaur car makers, poined-by-their-own-greed banks and uncompetitive whiteware manufacturers who relocated overseas are worthy of bail-outs, yet it's not on to protect NZ jobs - like swazi in Levin? How come all the Free Trade purists overseas keep protecting their own (Euro dairy, US cars) yet it's not OK for us? Who are we to be ideologically pure at a time like this? And is anyone going to front up, like Paul Keating, and say the days of US unquestioned global superiority are over and the big surplus countries - China & India - are now ascendant? And have a wee discussion about what that might mean for us down here at the bottom of the world?
If Lovelock's even half right, there won't be much of a damned world to trade with.
-
If Lovelock's even half right, there won't be much of a damned world to trade with.
Man, you're a party pooper!
-
Heard Lovelock on the radio last year talking to Kim Hill. I refer to that interview whenever someone says we are going to destroy the planet.
We aren't going to destroy the planet. We can lead to changes that destroy human civilisation, but the planet will continue to evolve and will chew us up and spit us out as it goes along.
He also talked then about potential for extreme events such as the gulf stream shutting down (ice age in Europe, end of the monsoons in Asia)
-
We aren't going to destroy the planet. We can lead to changes that destroy human civilisation, but the planet will continue to evolve and will chew us up and spit us out as it goes along.
Pretty much how I'd see it as well. The Earth's ecosphere will find an equilibrium whatever we humans do - but it mightn't be an equilibrium that includes us.
-
The 3,700 jobs figure (probably) doesn't mean that they'll hire 3,700 burly men with shovels and pickaxes.
One of the things I enjoy about NZ. Obama builds a Maglev from LA to Vegas and Key builds a cycle track from Bluff to the Cape.
It makes yer smile.
-
Man, you're a party pooper!
and I haven't even mentioned how that big, ruddy country next door keeps getting hotter and running out of water.... won't be long till hordes of Ockers start migrating this way, mate!
-
James Lovelock, who now believes it's too late to save the world
I prefer George Monbiot's view, detailed in his book 'Heat', that it's still (just) possible to avoid global climatic disaster by drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But, the only way I see that this can happen in time is for businesses, communities and governments to design their response to the economic crisis to also deal decisively with the environmental crisis. Today's jobs summit missed an opportunity to take an important step in that direction.
Having just started to vote when a NZ government was out on the world stage standing up against nuclear weapons, the past few months have seemed very odd indeed with our government lagging substantially behind even the US in it's response to global climate change. It's the sort of issue I'd expect NZ to lead the world on.
-
As for the politicians and the job summit - how come it's okay for the commoners to be at the mercy of market forces, but dinosaur car makers, poined-by-their-own-greed banks and uncompetitive whiteware manufacturers who relocated overseas are worthy of bail-outs, yet it's not on to protect NZ jobs - like swazi in Levin? How come all the Free Trade purists overseas keep protecting their own (Euro dairy, US cars) yet it's not OK for us? Who are we to be ideologically pure at a time like this?
Too damn right, Kerry -- what the hell use is a reputation for being a nation that can act as a honest broker when it comes to international trade policy (including aggressively standing up against the hypocrisy of the US and EU), because we actually practice what we preach? If you can't be bothered trying to beat 'em, get your kit off and join 'em in fucking the littler guys over.
Meanwhile, nice to see you're a supporter of corporate welfare. I'm the kind of filthy "purist" that would rather see public money being used to keep roofs over the heads of people whose only fault was losing their jobs; not setting up a 'moral hazard' where corporate fuck-ups get the message that as long as screw up big enough, the tax-payer will insulate them from the consequences of their bad judgement. Insulation, by the way, us peasants don't get when we make bad financial decisions like taking on debt we never realistically had a hope in hell of servicing.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.