Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm also not quite sure why the eating and drinking thing is at all relevant to your point
Read the article I linked with "enormous, wallowing, dangerous beasts" and you'll get it. I consider it a completely valid point, but YMMV. I have no idea if it applies here, assisted by our total lack of a domestic automotive production sector, but it doesn't appear to apply to any other car producing nation since I'm unaware of any other country where it's de riguer for there to be at least a 1:1 ratio of cup holders to seats in even the largest vehicles.
As for "othering" Americans, assuming I'm understanding the term correctly, I'm hardly alone. Possibly more vocal, but definitely not alone. I can usually point to at least some evidence to back up my position, as I've done here. They buy vehicles that are demonstrably unsafe and inefficient, and claim that it's because they're "safer". We buy cars, admittedly of very variable levels of safety but cars nonetheless. I've proved that this is true, unless you're questioning the validity of my sources?
I'm quite happy to drop this. We're not going to agree. I'm perfectly willing to concede that Kiwi consumers may well be as credulous, dopey and insecure as American ones, but the evidence points to Kiwis being somewhat more cerebral, as opposed to instinctual, when it comes to buying automobiles.
-
Danielle, what about that bit of my post where I actually gave you concrete examples to support my ambivalence? I also said they'd been manipulated masterfully, which points to credulity as much as "dumb and insecure". I should point out that those are your words, not mine. Either way, most of the top-selling vehicles in the US are ones that subscribe to the "it's big and it's high" philosophy. Here, such vehicles don't get a look-in. It's not much to do with fuel efficiency, either, since Commodores and Falcons were the rest of the top 3 for last year, behind the venerable Corolla. The rest of the top 5 were Japanese cars.
-
When it comes to saving money, capitalism typically finds a way.
Yes, it surely does. But there's a serious aversion within NZ business to the concept of "You've got to spend money to make money." This even extends to getting professional advice, where businesses will avoid it as long as possible and then only grudgingly hire the cheapest consultant they can find. In the long run, that can cost far more than it saves.
-
That's because they're a huge market, not because they're inherently any dumber or more insecure than we are.
Maybe, maybe not. I do note that our top-selling vehicles are all cars, not SUVs/trucks. It was huge news in the US that when Civics, Camrys and Corollas outsold the F-series pickup last May, being the first time since October 1991 that the F-series had been outsold by anything. That does carry its own implications about the relative merits that respective markets see in their modes of transport.
-
Rob, why did F&P Appliances off-shore to Mexico? That's right, because the labour was cheaper. I'd be amazed to find out that there was no automation solution that could've allowed them to keep production here, even if it meant laying off some employees.
Similarly, we have very little high-tech production here. We missed out on Motorola because our workforce is under-educated in engineering and advanced sciences. That we still have Tait is an absolute miracle.
Have we got any of the fancy in-field lumber milling systems here? That's a perfect example of where technology could increase productivity, but as far as I know we still use the classic "man with a saw" methods (I know they use machines, but it's still reliant on trucking out whole logs, and cutting the trees down one-by-one).
As for your claim that it's workforce illiteracy/innumeracy that's the biggest problem, we've got a far higher rate of fully-educated adults than the US. America manages, and well. I don't doubt that it's a problem, but you're going to have to try far harder than that to convince me that that's a predominate reason for our lousy productivity.
-
I don't think New Zealanders would win any 'smart consumer' prizes on this score either, frankly.
No, probably not. But if the American consumer had never desired such a ridiculous vehicle they'd never have been imported here. We don't get focus-grouped with a view to creating entirely new classes of vehicle.
-
The US makes plenty of useful stuff, so why waste resources making shite cars nobody wants?
That's the problem. People do want them. Dopey US consumers - with insecurity complexes and an inability to go more than 30 seconds without eating/drinking - that have been pandered to by genius marketing and design groups desire those enormous, wallowing, dangerous beasts. It's illogical, and irrational, and actually pretty damned terrifying, but want them they do. And best of luck convincing them that, actually, they should be buying things like Previas if they really need the space.
-
Like I said, I have been unable to find empirical real-world evidence of cutting upper marginal income tax rates magically delivering productivity (which is what we need for growth in this country). The "rational" argument is along the lines of "people will work more cause they get to keep more of it".
Working longer is not the path to increased productivity, though. Any politician who tries to argue otherwise should be ignored out-of-hand as having not the slightest fucking idea what they're discussing.
Increased productivity comes from producing more with the same inputs of labour and time. If I can make six widgets an hour, working at maximum possible speed, my productivity is not improved if I work for 10 hours a day instead of eight. Indeed, my average hourly output would probably decrease over time due to the decreased recovery time per day. However, if my employer invests in a machine to do some of the work and I can now make eight widgets an hour, my productivity has increased. But that requires an investment in capital means of production, which in this country is almost a dirty phrase - it's up there with "tax increases" and "sickness beneficiaries". Until that changes, we won't see any huge improvements to our OECD rankings. Employers will continue to pay the lowest possible wages to as many people as necessary to get a job done, rather than spend money on technology that would let them employ half that number of people for the same output. It's not some altruistic notion about keeping their employees in jobs, either, it's simple short=sightedness that makes them see the employees as an immediately-deductible operating expense vs the technology's long-term, depreciable expense that costs lots of money now but can only be deducted against income tax over some period of years (possibly 15-20, maybe more).
If Rodney really wanted to improve our productivity he'd be calling for a minimum wage of $20. That would force employers to evaluate technological improvements to their production methods, rather than taking the "throw more bodies at it" approach. Oh, that's right, he's only about improving returns for business by scrapping employee rights. Productivity is just code for "Mandatory whipping until morale improves."
-
Hide won his seat because Don Brash was clearly sympathetic to ACT.
Having a dodgy incumbent Nat MP probably helped too.
Yes. He's not otherwise known as "Richard Worthless" in my flat for nothing.
-
would prefer "North American influenza"
That's certainly a nicely generic title. Doesn't attribute to any particular ethnicity or country, and would shut up that silly Israeli cabinet minister. I suspect that it's too late, though.