Discussion:
Serial liar Dickbot tried to tell us minimum wage increases create jobs!
(too old to reply)
JohnO
2020-01-11 02:54:58 UTC
Permalink
But:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482

Latest one will reduce on average 6500 jobs, and previous one cost even more:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
Mutlley
2020-01-11 20:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
It has created more jobs but in the social services industry and
government agencies not in actual worker jobs.
Gordon
2020-01-12 03:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
Heard of Market forces and trckle down theory, okay raising the min wage is
the reverse bump up. Stops poverty and the market forces can actually
govern.
Crash
2020-01-12 09:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
That article, in a roundabout way, says that the prognosis of 43.600
jobs forecast to be created in 2020 will be reduced by between
4000-7500 jobs by the increase in the minimum wage. For the 242,400
wage earners that will receive an increase because of this increase,
he reduction in the projected increase will seem well worthwhile.

When the numbers show up like this, the numbers who benefit by the
increase dwarf the projected cost.

All private-sector employers will always seek to minimise costs -
whether wages or otherwise - and it is inevitable that legislated
minimum-wage increases will be met with the usual cost-containment
measures. The reality though is that those employers relying on
minimum wage rates are those whose profit margins are so thin that
they are forced to do so. I am thinking of those employers who say
that say they cannot find local people to work for them, so seek
ultra-low-cost imported labour through INZ exemptions rather that pay
the locals more.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-01-12 09:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
That article, in a roundabout way, says that the prognosis of 43.600
jobs forecast to be created in 2020 will be reduced by between
4000-7500 jobs by the increase in the minimum wage. For the 242,400
wage earners that will receive an increase because of this increase,
he reduction in the projected increase will seem well worthwhile.
When the numbers show up like this, the numbers who benefit by the
increase dwarf the projected cost.
All private-sector employers will always seek to minimise costs -
whether wages or otherwise - and it is inevitable that legislated
minimum-wage increases will be met with the usual cost-containment
measures. The reality though is that those employers relying on
minimum wage rates are those whose profit margins are so thin that
they are forced to do so. I am thinking of those employers who say
that say they cannot find local people to work for them, so seek
ultra-low-cost imported labour through INZ exemptions rather that pay
the locals more.
Are you saying that INZ exemptions enable businesses to employ people
in New Zealand at less than minimum wage? Contracting to an overseas
supplier is a different issue. The biggest result of the increased
money in the hands ofthe low paid is immediate spending, and further
profit for domestic companies. Our now low unemployment rate is also
unlikely to be affected in any sigificant way. ULtimately, higher
wages worked well in Australia in encouraging employers to actively
seek productivity increases, which have long term benefits to our
economy.
Crash
2020-01-12 21:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
That article, in a roundabout way, says that the prognosis of 43.600
jobs forecast to be created in 2020 will be reduced by between
4000-7500 jobs by the increase in the minimum wage. For the 242,400
wage earners that will receive an increase because of this increase,
he reduction in the projected increase will seem well worthwhile.
When the numbers show up like this, the numbers who benefit by the
increase dwarf the projected cost.
All private-sector employers will always seek to minimise costs -
whether wages or otherwise - and it is inevitable that legislated
minimum-wage increases will be met with the usual cost-containment
measures. The reality though is that those employers relying on
minimum wage rates are those whose profit margins are so thin that
they are forced to do so. I am thinking of those employers who say
that say they cannot find local people to work for them, so seek
ultra-low-cost imported labour through INZ exemptions rather that pay
the locals more.
Are you saying that INZ exemptions enable businesses to employ people
in New Zealand at less than minimum wage?
I thought what I said was quite clear and I cannot comprehend how you
reached your interpretation. There are some employers who offer the
minimum wage and then interpret a low or no response rate to there
being no-one they can employ locally. They then go to INZ to get a
permit to hire offshore workers in preference to offering a pay-rate
to locals that is above the minimum wage.
Post by Rich80105
Contracting to an overseas
supplier is a different issue. The biggest result of the increased
money in the hands ofthe low paid is immediate spending, and further
profit for domestic companies. Our now low unemployment rate is also
unlikely to be affected in any sigificant way. ULtimately, higher
wages worked well in Australia in encouraging employers to actively
seek productivity increases, which have long term benefits to our
economy.
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-01-13 01:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
That article, in a roundabout way, says that the prognosis of 43.600
jobs forecast to be created in 2020 will be reduced by between
4000-7500 jobs by the increase in the minimum wage. For the 242,400
wage earners that will receive an increase because of this increase,
he reduction in the projected increase will seem well worthwhile.
When the numbers show up like this, the numbers who benefit by the
increase dwarf the projected cost.
All private-sector employers will always seek to minimise costs -
whether wages or otherwise - and it is inevitable that legislated
minimum-wage increases will be met with the usual cost-containment
measures. The reality though is that those employers relying on
minimum wage rates are those whose profit margins are so thin that
they are forced to do so. I am thinking of those employers who say
that say they cannot find local people to work for them, so seek
ultra-low-cost imported labour through INZ exemptions rather that pay
the locals more.
Are you saying that INZ exemptions enable businesses to employ people
in New Zealand at less than minimum wage?
I thought what I said was quite clear and I cannot comprehend how you
reached your interpretation. There are some employers who offer the
minimum wage and then interpret a low or no response rate to there
being no-one they can employ locally. They then go to INZ to get a
permit to hire offshore workers in preference to offering a pay-rate
to locals that is above the minimum wage.
I hoped that is what you were referring to when you referred to
"ultra-low-cost imported labour". There are of course criminals who do
underpay thrugh "loans" for immigration applications, travel and then
rent, but I suspect there is a larger group who are legitimately
putting pressure on for more job-related immigration than is really
needed.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Contracting to an overseas
supplier is a different issue. The biggest result of the increased
money in the hands ofthe low paid is immediate spending, and further
profit for domestic companies. Our now low unemployment rate is also
unlikely to be affected in any sigificant way. ULtimately, higher
wages worked well in Australia in encouraging employers to actively
seek productivity increases, which have long term benefits to our
economy.
Tony
2020-01-12 22:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
That article, in a roundabout way, says that the prognosis of 43.600
jobs forecast to be created in 2020 will be reduced by between
4000-7500 jobs by the increase in the minimum wage. For the 242,400
wage earners that will receive an increase because of this increase,
he reduction in the projected increase will seem well worthwhile.
When the numbers show up like this, the numbers who benefit by the
increase dwarf the projected cost.
All private-sector employers will always seek to minimise costs -
whether wages or otherwise - and it is inevitable that legislated
minimum-wage increases will be met with the usual cost-containment
measures. The reality though is that those employers relying on
minimum wage rates are those whose profit margins are so thin that
they are forced to do so. I am thinking of those employers who say
that say they cannot find local people to work for them, so seek
ultra-low-cost imported labour through INZ exemptions rather that pay
the locals more.
You are absolutely correct in saying that enforcing a minimum wage on small
employers can and often does make it hard for them to make a profit and
therefore stay in business.
In principle I am in favour of minimum wages but we need to accept there is a
downside. There are some who believe that minimum wages drive higher
productivity; I have never seen any evidence of that and more often than not it
puts pressure on the business, some of which simply go away.
Rich80105
2020-01-13 01:55:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:04:33 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
That article, in a roundabout way, says that the prognosis of 43.600
jobs forecast to be created in 2020 will be reduced by between
4000-7500 jobs by the increase in the minimum wage. For the 242,400
wage earners that will receive an increase because of this increase,
he reduction in the projected increase will seem well worthwhile.
When the numbers show up like this, the numbers who benefit by the
increase dwarf the projected cost.
All private-sector employers will always seek to minimise costs -
whether wages or otherwise - and it is inevitable that legislated
minimum-wage increases will be met with the usual cost-containment
measures. The reality though is that those employers relying on
minimum wage rates are those whose profit margins are so thin that
they are forced to do so. I am thinking of those employers who say
that say they cannot find local people to work for them, so seek
ultra-low-cost imported labour through INZ exemptions rather that pay
the locals more.
You are absolutely correct in saying that enforcing a minimum wage on small
employers can and often does make it hard for them to make a profit and
therefore stay in business.
In principle I am in favour of minimum wages but we need to accept there is a
downside. There are some who believe that minimum wages drive higher
productivity; I have never seen any evidence of that and more often than not it
puts pressure on the business, some of which simply go away.
That is why care needs to be taken in increasing the minimum wage. The
current government cannot move it as fast os some supporters want, the
prevous government could not reduce it in real terms as fast as some
of its supporters wanted. Once we have a reasonable level it will be
appropriate to start phasing out the government subsidies for low
wages through "Working for families". At least at this stage thuogh
the additional wages are providing a good stimulus to the domestic
economy.
Tony
2020-01-13 02:09:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:04:33 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
That article, in a roundabout way, says that the prognosis of 43.600
jobs forecast to be created in 2020 will be reduced by between
4000-7500 jobs by the increase in the minimum wage. For the 242,400
wage earners that will receive an increase because of this increase,
he reduction in the projected increase will seem well worthwhile.
When the numbers show up like this, the numbers who benefit by the
increase dwarf the projected cost.
All private-sector employers will always seek to minimise costs -
whether wages or otherwise - and it is inevitable that legislated
minimum-wage increases will be met with the usual cost-containment
measures. The reality though is that those employers relying on
minimum wage rates are those whose profit margins are so thin that
they are forced to do so. I am thinking of those employers who say
that say they cannot find local people to work for them, so seek
ultra-low-cost imported labour through INZ exemptions rather that pay
the locals more.
You are absolutely correct in saying that enforcing a minimum wage on small
employers can and often does make it hard for them to make a profit and
therefore stay in business.
In principle I am in favour of minimum wages but we need to accept there is a
downside. There are some who believe that minimum wages drive higher
productivity; I have never seen any evidence of that and more often than not it
puts pressure on the business, some of which simply go away.
That is why care needs to be taken in increasing the minimum wage. The
current government cannot move it as fast os some supporters want, the
prevous government could not reduce it in real terms as fast as some
of its supporters wanted. Once we have a reasonable level it will be
appropriate to start phasing out the government subsidies for low
wages through "Working for families". At least at this stage thuogh
the additional wages are providing a good stimulus to the domestic
economy.
The previous government did not reduce or attempt to reduce the minimum wage so
far as I know. Can you provide evidence?
It is questionable whether this provides any economical stimulus.
That is not to say that a minimum wage is a bad idea but I suspect the only
value it has is to reduce hardship.
Rich80105
2020-01-13 04:09:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 20:09:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:04:33 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
That article, in a roundabout way, says that the prognosis of 43.600
jobs forecast to be created in 2020 will be reduced by between
4000-7500 jobs by the increase in the minimum wage. For the 242,400
wage earners that will receive an increase because of this increase,
he reduction in the projected increase will seem well worthwhile.
When the numbers show up like this, the numbers who benefit by the
increase dwarf the projected cost.
All private-sector employers will always seek to minimise costs -
whether wages or otherwise - and it is inevitable that legislated
minimum-wage increases will be met with the usual cost-containment
measures. The reality though is that those employers relying on
minimum wage rates are those whose profit margins are so thin that
they are forced to do so. I am thinking of those employers who say
that say they cannot find local people to work for them, so seek
ultra-low-cost imported labour through INZ exemptions rather that pay
the locals more.
You are absolutely correct in saying that enforcing a minimum wage on small
employers can and often does make it hard for them to make a profit and
therefore stay in business.
In principle I am in favour of minimum wages but we need to accept there is a
downside. There are some who believe that minimum wages drive higher
productivity; I have never seen any evidence of that and more often than not it
puts pressure on the business, some of which simply go away.
That is why care needs to be taken in increasing the minimum wage. The
current government cannot move it as fast os some supporters want, the
prevous government could not reduce it in real terms as fast as some
of its supporters wanted. Once we have a reasonable level it will be
appropriate to start phasing out the government subsidies for low
wages through "Working for families". At least at this stage thuogh
the additional wages are providing a good stimulus to the domestic
economy.
The previous government did not reduce or attempt to reduce the minimum wage so
far as I know. Can you provide evidence?
Not in dollar terms, Tony (althought there was a questions as to
whether the adjustment when GST was increased was adequate), but the
relevant measure is in real terms in relation to the cost of living.
Post by Tony
It is questionable whether this provides any economical stimulus.
By who? It is recognised by most economic commentators that those on
low wages spend almost all that they earn - increasing pay packets for
the poor goes very quickly into higher currency ciculation through
purchased, largely in the domestic markets. That is what provides the
stimulus - the first major increase by the current government saw a
reslting increase in taxation income from teh higher domestic profits
arising from that higher spending; and for many companies higher
turnover gave a reason for empoying more staff as well, so we saw the
unemployment rate fall.
Post by Tony
That is not to say that a minimum wage is a bad idea but I suspect the only
value it has is to reduce hardship.
When Jim Bolger was PM I think it was National Party policy to seek
equality of opportunity as well; that was for a long time a common
aim of successive governments whether Labour or National-led.
Tony
2020-01-13 04:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 20:09:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:04:33 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
That article, in a roundabout way, says that the prognosis of 43.600
jobs forecast to be created in 2020 will be reduced by between
4000-7500 jobs by the increase in the minimum wage. For the 242,400
wage earners that will receive an increase because of this increase,
he reduction in the projected increase will seem well worthwhile.
When the numbers show up like this, the numbers who benefit by the
increase dwarf the projected cost.
All private-sector employers will always seek to minimise costs -
whether wages or otherwise - and it is inevitable that legislated
minimum-wage increases will be met with the usual cost-containment
measures. The reality though is that those employers relying on
minimum wage rates are those whose profit margins are so thin that
they are forced to do so. I am thinking of those employers who say
that say they cannot find local people to work for them, so seek
ultra-low-cost imported labour through INZ exemptions rather that pay
the locals more.
You are absolutely correct in saying that enforcing a minimum wage on small
employers can and often does make it hard for them to make a profit and
therefore stay in business.
In principle I am in favour of minimum wages but we need to accept there is a
downside. There are some who believe that minimum wages drive higher
productivity; I have never seen any evidence of that and more often than
not
it
puts pressure on the business, some of which simply go away.
That is why care needs to be taken in increasing the minimum wage. The
current government cannot move it as fast os some supporters want, the
prevous government could not reduce it in real terms as fast as some
of its supporters wanted. Once we have a reasonable level it will be
appropriate to start phasing out the government subsidies for low
wages through "Working for families". At least at this stage thuogh
the additional wages are providing a good stimulus to the domestic
economy.
The previous government did not reduce or attempt to reduce the minimum wage so
far as I know. Can you provide evidence?
Not in dollar terms, Tony (althought there was a questions as to
whether the adjustment when GST was increased was adequate), but the
relevant measure is in real terms in relation to the cost of living.
They did not seek to reduce the minimumwage and dollar terms are the only way
to measure it.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
It is questionable whether this provides any economical stimulus.
By who? It is recognised by most economic commentators that those on
low wages spend almost all that they earn - increasing pay packets for
the poor goes very quickly into higher currency ciculation through
purchased, largely in the domestic markets. That is what provides the
stimulus - the first major increase by the current government saw a
reslting increase in taxation income from teh higher domestic profits
arising from that higher spending; and for many companies higher
turnover gave a reason for empoying more staff as well, so we saw the
unemployment rate fall.
Not all economists agree with that.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That is not to say that a minimum wage is a bad idea but I suspect the only
value it has is to reduce hardship.
When Jim Bolger was PM I think it was National Party policy to seek
equality of opportunity as well; that was for a long time a common
aim of successive governments whether Labour or National-led.
What a previous government wanted to do is entirely irrelevant. I believe there
is no other value but reduction in hardship, a perfectly reasonable belief.
Rich80105
2020-01-13 09:47:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 22:21:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 20:09:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:04:33 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
That article, in a roundabout way, says that the prognosis of 43.600
jobs forecast to be created in 2020 will be reduced by between
4000-7500 jobs by the increase in the minimum wage. For the 242,400
wage earners that will receive an increase because of this increase,
he reduction in the projected increase will seem well worthwhile.
When the numbers show up like this, the numbers who benefit by the
increase dwarf the projected cost.
All private-sector employers will always seek to minimise costs -
whether wages or otherwise - and it is inevitable that legislated
minimum-wage increases will be met with the usual cost-containment
measures. The reality though is that those employers relying on
minimum wage rates are those whose profit margins are so thin that
they are forced to do so. I am thinking of those employers who say
that say they cannot find local people to work for them, so seek
ultra-low-cost imported labour through INZ exemptions rather that pay
the locals more.
You are absolutely correct in saying that enforcing a minimum wage on small
employers can and often does make it hard for them to make a profit and
therefore stay in business.
In principle I am in favour of minimum wages but we need to accept there is a
downside. There are some who believe that minimum wages drive higher
productivity; I have never seen any evidence of that and more often than
not
it
puts pressure on the business, some of which simply go away.
That is why care needs to be taken in increasing the minimum wage. The
current government cannot move it as fast os some supporters want, the
prevous government could not reduce it in real terms as fast as some
of its supporters wanted. Once we have a reasonable level it will be
appropriate to start phasing out the government subsidies for low
wages through "Working for families". At least at this stage thuogh
the additional wages are providing a good stimulus to the domestic
economy.
The previous government did not reduce or attempt to reduce the minimum wage so
far as I know. Can you provide evidence?
Not in dollar terms, Tony (althought there was a questions as to
whether the adjustment when GST was increased was adequate), but the
relevant measure is in real terms in relation to the cost of living.
They did not seek to reduce the minimumwage and dollar terms are the only way
to measure it.
It is possible to measure it net of inflation - "real increases".
Whether you use AWE or CPI or another index is arguable, but minimum
wage increases are usually linked to increases in costs or earnings.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
It is questionable whether this provides any economical stimulus.
By who? It is recognised by most economic commentators that those on
low wages spend almost all that they earn - increasing pay packets for
the poor goes very quickly into higher currency ciculation through
purchased, largely in the domestic markets. That is what provides the
stimulus - the first major increase by the current government saw a
resulting increase in taxation income from the higher domestic profits
arising from that higher spending; and for many companies higher
turnover gave a reason for empoying more staff as well, so we saw the
unemployment rate fall.
Not all economists agree with that.
Really?

Here is a fairly poor analysis, but one that you may find convincing:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/12/minimum-wage-changes-vs-unemployment-what-the-evidence-says.html
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That is not to say that a minimum wage is a bad idea but I suspect the only
value it has is to reduce hardship.
When Jim Bolger was PM I think it was National Party policy to seek
equality of opportunity as well; that was for a long time a common
aim of successive governments whether Labour or National-led.
What a previous government wanted to do is entirely irrelevant. I believe there
is no other value but reduction in hardship, a perfectly reasonable belief.
Tony
2020-01-13 19:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 22:21:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 20:09:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:04:33 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
That article, in a roundabout way, says that the prognosis of 43.600
jobs forecast to be created in 2020 will be reduced by between
4000-7500 jobs by the increase in the minimum wage. For the 242,400
wage earners that will receive an increase because of this increase,
he reduction in the projected increase will seem well worthwhile.
When the numbers show up like this, the numbers who benefit by the
increase dwarf the projected cost.
All private-sector employers will always seek to minimise costs -
whether wages or otherwise - and it is inevitable that legislated
minimum-wage increases will be met with the usual cost-containment
measures. The reality though is that those employers relying on
minimum wage rates are those whose profit margins are so thin that
they are forced to do so. I am thinking of those employers who say
that say they cannot find local people to work for them, so seek
ultra-low-cost imported labour through INZ exemptions rather that pay
the locals more.
You are absolutely correct in saying that enforcing a minimum wage on small
employers can and often does make it hard for them to make a profit and
therefore stay in business.
In principle I am in favour of minimum wages but we need to accept there
is
a
downside. There are some who believe that minimum wages drive higher
productivity; I have never seen any evidence of that and more often than
not
it
puts pressure on the business, some of which simply go away.
That is why care needs to be taken in increasing the minimum wage. The
current government cannot move it as fast os some supporters want, the
prevous government could not reduce it in real terms as fast as some
of its supporters wanted. Once we have a reasonable level it will be
appropriate to start phasing out the government subsidies for low
wages through "Working for families". At least at this stage thuogh
the additional wages are providing a good stimulus to the domestic
economy.
The previous government did not reduce or attempt to reduce the minimum
wage
so
far as I know. Can you provide evidence?
Not in dollar terms, Tony (althought there was a questions as to
whether the adjustment when GST was increased was adequate), but the
relevant measure is in real terms in relation to the cost of living.
They did not seek to reduce the minimumwage and dollar terms are the only way
to measure it.
It is possible to measure it net of inflation - "real increases".
Whether you use AWE or CPI or another index is arguable, but minimum
wage increases are usually linked to increases in costs or earnings.
Which does not make any real sense. The previous government, as I wrote, did
not seek to reduce the minimum wage. That claim by you is looking like a made
up bit of nonsense.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
It is questionable whether this provides any economical stimulus.
By who? It is recognised by most economic commentators that those on
low wages spend almost all that they earn - increasing pay packets for
the poor goes very quickly into higher currency ciculation through
purchased, largely in the domestic markets. That is what provides the
stimulus - the first major increase by the current government saw a
resulting increase in taxation income from the higher domestic profits
arising from that higher spending; and for many companies higher
turnover gave a reason for empoying more staff as well, so we saw the
unemployment rate fall.
Not all economists agree with that.
Really?
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/12/minimum-wage-changes-vs-unemployment-what-the-evidence-says.html
It does not convince me. Seems like a very poor argument.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That is not to say that a minimum wage is a bad idea but I suspect the only
value it has is to reduce hardship.
When Jim Bolger was PM I think it was National Party policy to seek
equality of opportunity as well; that was for a long time a common
aim of successive governments whether Labour or National-led.
What a previous government wanted to do is entirely irrelevant. I believe there
is no other value but reduction in hardship, a perfectly reasonable belief.
John Bowes
2020-01-13 22:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 22:21:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 20:09:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:04:33 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
Latest one will reduce on average 6500 jobs, and previous one cost even
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
That article, in a roundabout way, says that the prognosis of 43.600
jobs forecast to be created in 2020 will be reduced by between
4000-7500 jobs by the increase in the minimum wage. For the 242,400
wage earners that will receive an increase because of this increase,
he reduction in the projected increase will seem well worthwhile.
When the numbers show up like this, the numbers who benefit by the
increase dwarf the projected cost.
All private-sector employers will always seek to minimise costs -
whether wages or otherwise - and it is inevitable that legislated
minimum-wage increases will be met with the usual cost-containment
measures. The reality though is that those employers relying on
minimum wage rates are those whose profit margins are so thin that
they are forced to do so. I am thinking of those employers who say
that say they cannot find local people to work for them, so seek
ultra-low-cost imported labour through INZ exemptions rather that pay
the locals more.
You are absolutely correct in saying that enforcing a minimum wage on small
employers can and often does make it hard for them to make a profit and
therefore stay in business.
In principle I am in favour of minimum wages but we need to accept there
is
a
downside. There are some who believe that minimum wages drive higher
productivity; I have never seen any evidence of that and more often than
not
it
puts pressure on the business, some of which simply go away.
That is why care needs to be taken in increasing the minimum wage. The
current government cannot move it as fast os some supporters want, the
prevous government could not reduce it in real terms as fast as some
of its supporters wanted. Once we have a reasonable level it will be
appropriate to start phasing out the government subsidies for low
wages through "Working for families". At least at this stage thuogh
the additional wages are providing a good stimulus to the domestic
economy.
The previous government did not reduce or attempt to reduce the minimum
wage
so
far as I know. Can you provide evidence?
Not in dollar terms, Tony (althought there was a questions as to
whether the adjustment when GST was increased was adequate), but the
relevant measure is in real terms in relation to the cost of living.
They did not seek to reduce the minimumwage and dollar terms are the only way
to measure it.
It is possible to measure it net of inflation - "real increases".
Whether you use AWE or CPI or another index is arguable, but minimum
wage increases are usually linked to increases in costs or earnings.
Which does not make any real sense. The previous government, as I wrote, did
not seek to reduce the minimum wage. That claim by you is looking like a made
up bit of nonsense.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
It is questionable whether this provides any economical stimulus.
By who? It is recognised by most economic commentators that those on
low wages spend almost all that they earn - increasing pay packets for
the poor goes very quickly into higher currency ciculation through
purchased, largely in the domestic markets. That is what provides the
stimulus - the first major increase by the current government saw a
resulting increase in taxation income from the higher domestic profits
arising from that higher spending; and for many companies higher
turnover gave a reason for empoying more staff as well, so we saw the
unemployment rate fall.
Not all economists agree with that.
Really?
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/12/minimum-wage-changes-vs-unemployment-what-the-evidence-says.html
It does not convince me. Seems like a very poor argument.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That is not to say that a minimum wage is a bad idea but I suspect the only
value it has is to reduce hardship.
When Jim Bolger was PM I think it was National Party policy to seek
equality of opportunity as well; that was for a long time a common
aim of successive governments whether Labour or National-led.
What a previous government wanted to do is entirely irrelevant. I believe there
is no other value but reduction in hardship, a perfectly reasonable belief.
During Nationals nine years in office the minimum wage went up EVERY year. Regrettably that wasn't the case when Richie's tin pot dictator Clark was in power! :(
Rich80105
2020-01-13 22:37:16 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:02:12 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 22:21:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 20:09:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:04:33 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
Latest one will reduce on average 6500 jobs, and previous one cost even
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
That article, in a roundabout way, says that the prognosis of 43.600
jobs forecast to be created in 2020 will be reduced by between
4000-7500 jobs by the increase in the minimum wage. For the 242,400
wage earners that will receive an increase because of this increase,
he reduction in the projected increase will seem well worthwhile.
When the numbers show up like this, the numbers who benefit by the
increase dwarf the projected cost.
All private-sector employers will always seek to minimise costs -
whether wages or otherwise - and it is inevitable that legislated
minimum-wage increases will be met with the usual cost-containment
measures. The reality though is that those employers relying on
minimum wage rates are those whose profit margins are so thin that
they are forced to do so. I am thinking of those employers who say
that say they cannot find local people to work for them, so seek
ultra-low-cost imported labour through INZ exemptions rather that pay
the locals more.
You are absolutely correct in saying that enforcing a minimum wage on small
employers can and often does make it hard for them to make a profit and
therefore stay in business.
In principle I am in favour of minimum wages but we need to accept there
is
a
downside. There are some who believe that minimum wages drive higher
productivity; I have never seen any evidence of that and more often than
not
it
puts pressure on the business, some of which simply go away.
That is why care needs to be taken in increasing the minimum wage. The
current government cannot move it as fast os some supporters want, the
prevous government could not reduce it in real terms as fast as some
of its supporters wanted. Once we have a reasonable level it will be
appropriate to start phasing out the government subsidies for low
wages through "Working for families". At least at this stage thuogh
the additional wages are providing a good stimulus to the domestic
economy.
The previous government did not reduce or attempt to reduce the minimum
wage
so
far as I know. Can you provide evidence?
Not in dollar terms, Tony (althought there was a questions as to
whether the adjustment when GST was increased was adequate), but the
relevant measure is in real terms in relation to the cost of living.
They did not seek to reduce the minimumwage and dollar terms are the only way
to measure it.
It is possible to measure it net of inflation - "real increases".
Whether you use AWE or CPI or another index is arguable, but minimum
wage increases are usually linked to increases in costs or earnings.
Which does not make any real sense. The previous government, as I wrote, did
not seek to reduce the minimum wage. That claim by you is looking like a made
up bit of nonsense.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
It is questionable whether this provides any economical stimulus.
By who? It is recognised by most economic commentators that those on
low wages spend almost all that they earn - increasing pay packets for
the poor goes very quickly into higher currency ciculation through
purchased, largely in the domestic markets. That is what provides the
stimulus - the first major increase by the current government saw a
resulting increase in taxation income from the higher domestic profits
arising from that higher spending; and for many companies higher
turnover gave a reason for empoying more staff as well, so we saw the
unemployment rate fall.
Not all economists agree with that.
Really?
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/12/minimum-wage-changes-vs-unemployment-what-the-evidence-says.html
It does not convince me. Seems like a very poor argument.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That is not to say that a minimum wage is a bad idea but I suspect the only
value it has is to reduce hardship.
When Jim Bolger was PM I think it was National Party policy to seek
equality of opportunity as well; that was for a long time a common
aim of successive governments whether Labour or National-led.
What a previous government wanted to do is entirely irrelevant. I believe there
is no other value but reduction in hardship, a perfectly reasonable belief.
During Nationals nine years in office the minimum wage went up EVERY year. Regrettably that wasn't the case when Richie's tin pot dictator Clark was in power! :(
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/12/minimum-wage-changes-vs-unemployment-what-the-evidence-says.html
https://www.employment.govt.nz/hours-and-wages/pay/minimum-wage/previous-rates/
What were the increases in 1998 and 1999, Liar John?

The real point is that the minimum wage under National-led governments
went up slower than costs - those on minimum wage went backwards;
National increased hardship - but you and Tony both know that.
Tony
2020-01-14 00:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:02:12 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 22:21:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 20:09:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:04:33 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by JohnO
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
Latest one will reduce on average 6500 jobs, and previous one cost even
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
That article, in a roundabout way, says that the prognosis of 43.600
jobs forecast to be created in 2020 will be reduced by between
4000-7500 jobs by the increase in the minimum wage. For the 242,400
wage earners that will receive an increase because of this increase,
he reduction in the projected increase will seem well worthwhile.
When the numbers show up like this, the numbers who benefit by the
increase dwarf the projected cost.
All private-sector employers will always seek to minimise costs -
whether wages or otherwise - and it is inevitable that legislated
minimum-wage increases will be met with the usual cost-containment
measures. The reality though is that those employers relying on
minimum wage rates are those whose profit margins are so thin that
they are forced to do so. I am thinking of those employers who say
that say they cannot find local people to work for them, so seek
ultra-low-cost imported labour through INZ exemptions rather that pay
the locals more.
You are absolutely correct in saying that enforcing a minimum wage on small
employers can and often does make it hard for them to make a profit and
therefore stay in business.
In principle I am in favour of minimum wages but we need to accept there
is
a
downside. There are some who believe that minimum wages drive higher
productivity; I have never seen any evidence of that and more often than
not
it
puts pressure on the business, some of which simply go away.
That is why care needs to be taken in increasing the minimum wage. The
current government cannot move it as fast os some supporters want, the
prevous government could not reduce it in real terms as fast as some
of its supporters wanted. Once we have a reasonable level it will be
appropriate to start phasing out the government subsidies for low
wages through "Working for families". At least at this stage thuogh
the additional wages are providing a good stimulus to the domestic
economy.
The previous government did not reduce or attempt to reduce the minimum
wage
so
far as I know. Can you provide evidence?
Not in dollar terms, Tony (althought there was a questions as to
whether the adjustment when GST was increased was adequate), but the
relevant measure is in real terms in relation to the cost of living.
They did not seek to reduce the minimumwage and dollar terms are the only way
to measure it.
It is possible to measure it net of inflation - "real increases".
Whether you use AWE or CPI or another index is arguable, but minimum
wage increases are usually linked to increases in costs or earnings.
Which does not make any real sense. The previous government, as I wrote, did
not seek to reduce the minimum wage. That claim by you is looking like a made
up bit of nonsense.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
It is questionable whether this provides any economical stimulus.
By who? It is recognised by most economic commentators that those on
low wages spend almost all that they earn - increasing pay packets for
the poor goes very quickly into higher currency ciculation through
purchased, largely in the domestic markets. That is what provides the
stimulus - the first major increase by the current government saw a
resulting increase in taxation income from the higher domestic profits
arising from that higher spending; and for many companies higher
turnover gave a reason for empoying more staff as well, so we saw the
unemployment rate fall.
Not all economists agree with that.
Really?
Post by Tony
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/12/minimum-wage-changes-vs-unemployment-what-the-evidence-says.html
It does not convince me. Seems like a very poor argument.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That is not to say that a minimum wage is a bad idea but I suspect the only
value it has is to reduce hardship.
When Jim Bolger was PM I think it was National Party policy to seek
equality of opportunity as well; that was for a long time a common
aim of successive governments whether Labour or National-led.
What a previous government wanted to do is entirely irrelevant. I believe there
is no other value but reduction in hardship, a perfectly reasonable belief.
During Nationals nine years in office the minimum wage went up EVERY year.
Regrettably that wasn't the case when Richie's tin pot dictator Clark was in
power! :(
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/12/minimum-wage-changes-vs-unemployment-what-the-evidence-says.html
https://www.employment.govt.nz/hours-and-wages/pay/minimum-wage/previous-rates/
What were the increases in 1998 and 1999, Liar John?
The real point is that the minimum wage under National-led governments
went up slower than costs - those on minimum wage went backwards;
National increased hardship - but you and Tony both know that.
I do not know that, hardship is a complex calculation involving much more than
wages. This government has not seen a decrease in homeless people. And this is
another distraction by you. What National did or did not do is irrelevant, the
subject is whether minimum wage increases create jobs.
Crash
2020-01-14 01:47:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:02:12 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 22:21:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 20:09:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:04:33 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
Latest one will reduce on average 6500 jobs, and previous one cost even
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
That article, in a roundabout way, says that the prognosis of 43.600
jobs forecast to be created in 2020 will be reduced by between
4000-7500 jobs by the increase in the minimum wage. For the 242,400
wage earners that will receive an increase because of this increase,
he reduction in the projected increase will seem well worthwhile.
When the numbers show up like this, the numbers who benefit by the
increase dwarf the projected cost.
All private-sector employers will always seek to minimise costs -
whether wages or otherwise - and it is inevitable that legislated
minimum-wage increases will be met with the usual cost-containment
measures. The reality though is that those employers relying on
minimum wage rates are those whose profit margins are so thin that
they are forced to do so. I am thinking of those employers who say
that say they cannot find local people to work for them, so seek
ultra-low-cost imported labour through INZ exemptions rather that pay
the locals more.
You are absolutely correct in saying that enforcing a minimum wage on small
employers can and often does make it hard for them to make a profit and
therefore stay in business.
In principle I am in favour of minimum wages but we need to accept there
is
a
downside. There are some who believe that minimum wages drive higher
productivity; I have never seen any evidence of that and more often than
not
it
puts pressure on the business, some of which simply go away.
That is why care needs to be taken in increasing the minimum wage. The
current government cannot move it as fast os some supporters want, the
prevous government could not reduce it in real terms as fast as some
of its supporters wanted. Once we have a reasonable level it will be
appropriate to start phasing out the government subsidies for low
wages through "Working for families". At least at this stage thuogh
the additional wages are providing a good stimulus to the domestic
economy.
The previous government did not reduce or attempt to reduce the minimum
wage
so
far as I know. Can you provide evidence?
Not in dollar terms, Tony (althought there was a questions as to
whether the adjustment when GST was increased was adequate), but the
relevant measure is in real terms in relation to the cost of living.
They did not seek to reduce the minimumwage and dollar terms are the only way
to measure it.
It is possible to measure it net of inflation - "real increases".
Whether you use AWE or CPI or another index is arguable, but minimum
wage increases are usually linked to increases in costs or earnings.
Which does not make any real sense. The previous government, as I wrote, did
not seek to reduce the minimum wage. That claim by you is looking like a made
up bit of nonsense.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
It is questionable whether this provides any economical stimulus.
By who? It is recognised by most economic commentators that those on
low wages spend almost all that they earn - increasing pay packets for
the poor goes very quickly into higher currency ciculation through
purchased, largely in the domestic markets. That is what provides the
stimulus - the first major increase by the current government saw a
resulting increase in taxation income from the higher domestic profits
arising from that higher spending; and for many companies higher
turnover gave a reason for empoying more staff as well, so we saw the
unemployment rate fall.
Not all economists agree with that.
Really?
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/12/minimum-wage-changes-vs-unemployment-what-the-evidence-says.html
It does not convince me. Seems like a very poor argument.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That is not to say that a minimum wage is a bad idea but I suspect the only
value it has is to reduce hardship.
When Jim Bolger was PM I think it was National Party policy to seek
equality of opportunity as well; that was for a long time a common
aim of successive governments whether Labour or National-led.
What a previous government wanted to do is entirely irrelevant. I believe there
is no other value but reduction in hardship, a perfectly reasonable belief.
During Nationals nine years in office the minimum wage went up EVERY year. Regrettably that wasn't the case when Richie's tin pot dictator Clark was in power! :(
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/12/minimum-wage-changes-vs-unemployment-what-the-evidence-says.html
https://www.employment.govt.nz/hours-and-wages/pay/minimum-wage/previous-rates/
What were the increases in 1998 and 1999, Liar John?
I read John's comments as referencing the National-led governments of
2008-2017.
Post by Rich80105
The real point is that the minimum wage under National-led governments
went up slower than costs - those on minimum wage went backwards;
National increased hardship - but you and Tony both know that.
That is a claim made several times without explanation. What do you
call 'costs' - inflation? That is difficult to sustain given that the
2008-2017 period in particular was one of very low inflation.

The current increases in the minimum wage, as always, are driven by
political considerations and (in particular) Labour policy. If you
feel that the increases under the current government are benefiting
minimum wage earners better than the increases during the previous
National governments feel free to cite your financial support.




--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-01-14 06:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:02:12 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 22:21:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 20:09:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:04:33 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
Latest one will reduce on average 6500 jobs, and previous one cost even
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
That article, in a roundabout way, says that the prognosis of 43.600
jobs forecast to be created in 2020 will be reduced by between
4000-7500 jobs by the increase in the minimum wage. For the 242,400
wage earners that will receive an increase because of this increase,
he reduction in the projected increase will seem well worthwhile.
When the numbers show up like this, the numbers who benefit by the
increase dwarf the projected cost.
All private-sector employers will always seek to minimise costs -
whether wages or otherwise - and it is inevitable that legislated
minimum-wage increases will be met with the usual cost-containment
measures. The reality though is that those employers relying on
minimum wage rates are those whose profit margins are so thin that
they are forced to do so. I am thinking of those employers who say
that say they cannot find local people to work for them, so seek
ultra-low-cost imported labour through INZ exemptions rather that pay
the locals more.
You are absolutely correct in saying that enforcing a minimum wage on
small
employers can and often does make it hard for them to make a profit and
therefore stay in business.
In principle I am in favour of minimum wages but we need to accept there
is
a
downside. There are some who believe that minimum wages drive higher
productivity; I have never seen any evidence of that and more often than
not
it
puts pressure on the business, some of which simply go away.
That is why care needs to be taken in increasing the minimum wage. The
current government cannot move it as fast os some supporters want, the
prevous government could not reduce it in real terms as fast as some
of its supporters wanted. Once we have a reasonable level it will be
appropriate to start phasing out the government subsidies for low
wages through "Working for families". At least at this stage thuogh
the additional wages are providing a good stimulus to the domestic
economy.
The previous government did not reduce or attempt to reduce the minimum
wage
so
far as I know. Can you provide evidence?
Not in dollar terms, Tony (althought there was a questions as to
whether the adjustment when GST was increased was adequate), but the
relevant measure is in real terms in relation to the cost of living.
They did not seek to reduce the minimumwage and dollar terms are the only way
to measure it.
It is possible to measure it net of inflation - "real increases".
Whether you use AWE or CPI or another index is arguable, but minimum
wage increases are usually linked to increases in costs or earnings.
Which does not make any real sense. The previous government, as I wrote, did
not seek to reduce the minimum wage. That claim by you is looking like a made
up bit of nonsense.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
It is questionable whether this provides any economical stimulus.
By who? It is recognised by most economic commentators that those on
low wages spend almost all that they earn - increasing pay packets for
the poor goes very quickly into higher currency ciculation through
purchased, largely in the domestic markets. That is what provides the
stimulus - the first major increase by the current government saw a
resulting increase in taxation income from the higher domestic profits
arising from that higher spending; and for many companies higher
turnover gave a reason for empoying more staff as well, so we saw the
unemployment rate fall.
Not all economists agree with that.
Really?
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/12/minimum-wage-changes-vs-unemployment-what-the-evidence-says.html
It does not convince me. Seems like a very poor argument.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That is not to say that a minimum wage is a bad idea but I suspect the only
value it has is to reduce hardship.
When Jim Bolger was PM I think it was National Party policy to seek
equality of opportunity as well; that was for a long time a common
aim of successive governments whether Labour or National-led.
What a previous government wanted to do is entirely irrelevant. I believe there
is no other value but reduction in hardship, a perfectly reasonable belief.
During Nationals nine years in office the minimum wage went up EVERY year. Regrettably that wasn't the case when Richie's tin pot dictator Clark was in power! :(
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/12/minimum-wage-changes-vs-unemployment-what-the-evidence-says.html
https://www.employment.govt.nz/hours-and-wages/pay/minimum-wage/previous-rates/
What were the increases in 1998 and 1999, Liar John?
I read John's comments as referencing the National-led governments of
2008-2017.
I was responding primarily to Liar John's statement about the Clark
governments - there was not a year of those governments when the
minimum wage was not increased - I then looked back a little further
and found that he may have been referring to the previous NAtional-led
government.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The real point is that the minimum wage under National-led governments
went up slower than costs - those on minimum wage went backwards;
National increased hardship - but you and Tony both know that.
That is a claim made several times without explanation. What do you
call 'costs' - inflation? That is difficult to sustain given that the
2008-2017 period in particular was one of very low inflation. The urls that I have given support my comments.
Indexation of benefits and linked levels (for both tax and minimum
wage, to either the Consumer price index or to Average Weekly
Earnings. There are no other indices which measure cost inflation for
the group most likely to be receiving different levels of income.
Post by Crash
The current increases in the minimum wage, as always, are driven by
political considerations and (in particular) Labour policy. If you
feel that the increases under the current government are benefiting
minimum wage earners better than the increases during the previous
National governments feel free to cite your financial support.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/12/minimum-wage-changes-vs-unemployment-what-the-evidence-says.html

If you scroll down a bit there is a coloured graphic identifying
National-led or Labour-led governmentswith some commentary.
John Bowes
2020-01-15 06:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:02:12 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 22:21:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 20:09:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:04:33 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
Latest one will reduce on average 6500 jobs, and previous one cost even
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
That article, in a roundabout way, says that the prognosis of 43.600
jobs forecast to be created in 2020 will be reduced by between
4000-7500 jobs by the increase in the minimum wage. For the 242,400
wage earners that will receive an increase because of this increase,
he reduction in the projected increase will seem well worthwhile.
When the numbers show up like this, the numbers who benefit by the
increase dwarf the projected cost.
All private-sector employers will always seek to minimise costs -
whether wages or otherwise - and it is inevitable that legislated
minimum-wage increases will be met with the usual cost-containment
measures. The reality though is that those employers relying on
minimum wage rates are those whose profit margins are so thin that
they are forced to do so. I am thinking of those employers who say
that say they cannot find local people to work for them, so seek
ultra-low-cost imported labour through INZ exemptions rather that pay
the locals more.
You are absolutely correct in saying that enforcing a minimum wage on
small
employers can and often does make it hard for them to make a profit and
therefore stay in business.
In principle I am in favour of minimum wages but we need to accept there
is
a
downside. There are some who believe that minimum wages drive higher
productivity; I have never seen any evidence of that and more often than
not
it
puts pressure on the business, some of which simply go away.
That is why care needs to be taken in increasing the minimum wage. The
current government cannot move it as fast os some supporters want, the
prevous government could not reduce it in real terms as fast as some
of its supporters wanted. Once we have a reasonable level it will be
appropriate to start phasing out the government subsidies for low
wages through "Working for families". At least at this stage thuogh
the additional wages are providing a good stimulus to the domestic
economy.
The previous government did not reduce or attempt to reduce the minimum
wage
so
far as I know. Can you provide evidence?
Not in dollar terms, Tony (althought there was a questions as to
whether the adjustment when GST was increased was adequate), but the
relevant measure is in real terms in relation to the cost of living.
They did not seek to reduce the minimumwage and dollar terms are the only way
to measure it.
It is possible to measure it net of inflation - "real increases".
Whether you use AWE or CPI or another index is arguable, but minimum
wage increases are usually linked to increases in costs or earnings.
Which does not make any real sense. The previous government, as I wrote, did
not seek to reduce the minimum wage. That claim by you is looking like a made
up bit of nonsense.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
It is questionable whether this provides any economical stimulus.
By who? It is recognised by most economic commentators that those on
low wages spend almost all that they earn - increasing pay packets for
the poor goes very quickly into higher currency ciculation through
purchased, largely in the domestic markets. That is what provides the
stimulus - the first major increase by the current government saw a
resulting increase in taxation income from the higher domestic profits
arising from that higher spending; and for many companies higher
turnover gave a reason for empoying more staff as well, so we saw the
unemployment rate fall.
Not all economists agree with that.
Really?
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/12/minimum-wage-changes-vs-unemployment-what-the-evidence-says.html
It does not convince me. Seems like a very poor argument.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That is not to say that a minimum wage is a bad idea but I suspect the only
value it has is to reduce hardship.
When Jim Bolger was PM I think it was National Party policy to seek
equality of opportunity as well; that was for a long time a common
aim of successive governments whether Labour or National-led.
What a previous government wanted to do is entirely irrelevant. I believe
there
is no other value but reduction in hardship, a perfectly reasonable belief.
During Nationals nine years in office the minimum wage went up EVERY year. Regrettably that wasn't the case when Richie's tin pot dictator Clark was in power! :(
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/12/minimum-wage-changes-vs-unemployment-what-the-evidence-says.html
https://www.employment.govt.nz/hours-and-wages/pay/minimum-wage/previous-rates/
What were the increases in 1998 and 1999, Liar John?
I read John's comments as referencing the National-led governments of
2008-2017.
I was responding primarily to Liar John's statement about the Clark
governments - there was not a year of those governments when the
minimum wage was not increased - I then looked back a little further
and found that he may have been referring to the previous NAtional-led
government.
Prove your claim Rich. Otherwise it's just another of your constant lies Rich. Btw you have a gall accusing me of being a liar when you have only ever claimed and have never ever provided proof!
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The real point is that the minimum wage under National-led governments
went up slower than costs - those on minimum wage went backwards;
National increased hardship - but you and Tony both know that.
That is a claim made several times without explanation. What do you
call 'costs' - inflation? That is difficult to sustain given that the
2008-2017 period in particular was one of very low inflation. The urls that I have given support my comments.
Indexation of benefits and linked levels (for both tax and minimum
wage, to either the Consumer price index or to Average Weekly
Earnings. There are no other indices which measure cost inflation for
the group most likely to be receiving different levels of income.
Post by Crash
The current increases in the minimum wage, as always, are driven by
political considerations and (in particular) Labour policy. If you
feel that the increases under the current government are benefiting
minimum wage earners better than the increases during the previous
National governments feel free to cite your financial support.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/12/minimum-wage-changes-vs-unemployment-what-the-evidence-says.html
If you scroll down a bit there is a coloured graphic identifying
National-led or Labour-led governmentswith some commentary.
Thank you Rich for once again proving YOU are in fact the liar! Love your own goals Rich :)
John Bowes
2020-01-15 06:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:02:12 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 22:21:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 20:09:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:04:33 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
Post by JohnO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
Latest one will reduce on average 6500 jobs, and previous one cost even
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12299482
That article, in a roundabout way, says that the prognosis of 43.600
jobs forecast to be created in 2020 will be reduced by between
4000-7500 jobs by the increase in the minimum wage. For the 242,400
wage earners that will receive an increase because of this increase,
he reduction in the projected increase will seem well worthwhile.
When the numbers show up like this, the numbers who benefit by the
increase dwarf the projected cost.
All private-sector employers will always seek to minimise costs -
whether wages or otherwise - and it is inevitable that legislated
minimum-wage increases will be met with the usual cost-containment
measures. The reality though is that those employers relying on
minimum wage rates are those whose profit margins are so thin that
they are forced to do so. I am thinking of those employers who say
that say they cannot find local people to work for them, so seek
ultra-low-cost imported labour through INZ exemptions rather that pay
the locals more.
You are absolutely correct in saying that enforcing a minimum wage on
small
employers can and often does make it hard for them to make a profit and
therefore stay in business.
In principle I am in favour of minimum wages but we need to accept there
is
a
downside. There are some who believe that minimum wages drive higher
productivity; I have never seen any evidence of that and more often than
not
it
puts pressure on the business, some of which simply go away.
That is why care needs to be taken in increasing the minimum wage. The
current government cannot move it as fast os some supporters want, the
prevous government could not reduce it in real terms as fast as some
of its supporters wanted. Once we have a reasonable level it will be
appropriate to start phasing out the government subsidies for low
wages through "Working for families". At least at this stage thuogh
the additional wages are providing a good stimulus to the domestic
economy.
The previous government did not reduce or attempt to reduce the minimum
wage
so
far as I know. Can you provide evidence?
Not in dollar terms, Tony (althought there was a questions as to
whether the adjustment when GST was increased was adequate), but the
relevant measure is in real terms in relation to the cost of living.
They did not seek to reduce the minimumwage and dollar terms are the only way
to measure it.
It is possible to measure it net of inflation - "real increases".
Whether you use AWE or CPI or another index is arguable, but minimum
wage increases are usually linked to increases in costs or earnings.
Which does not make any real sense. The previous government, as I wrote, did
not seek to reduce the minimum wage. That claim by you is looking like a made
up bit of nonsense.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
It is questionable whether this provides any economical stimulus.
By who? It is recognised by most economic commentators that those on
low wages spend almost all that they earn - increasing pay packets for
the poor goes very quickly into higher currency ciculation through
purchased, largely in the domestic markets. That is what provides the
stimulus - the first major increase by the current government saw a
resulting increase in taxation income from the higher domestic profits
arising from that higher spending; and for many companies higher
turnover gave a reason for empoying more staff as well, so we saw the
unemployment rate fall.
Not all economists agree with that.
Really?
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/12/minimum-wage-changes-vs-unemployment-what-the-evidence-says.html
It does not convince me. Seems like a very poor argument.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That is not to say that a minimum wage is a bad idea but I suspect the only
value it has is to reduce hardship.
When Jim Bolger was PM I think it was National Party policy to seek
equality of opportunity as well; that was for a long time a common
aim of successive governments whether Labour or National-led.
What a previous government wanted to do is entirely irrelevant. I believe there
is no other value but reduction in hardship, a perfectly reasonable belief.
During Nationals nine years in office the minimum wage went up EVERY year. Regrettably that wasn't the case when Richie's tin pot dictator Clark was in power! :(
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/12/minimum-wage-changes-vs-unemployment-what-the-evidence-says.html
https://www.employment.govt.nz/hours-and-wages/pay/minimum-wage/previous-rates/
What were the increases in 1998 and 1999, Liar John?
Haven't a clue. but increases you can pretty well guarantee happened with little fan fair!
Post by Rich80105
The real point is that the minimum wage under National-led governments
went up slower than costs - those on minimum wage went backwards;
National increased hardship - but you and Tony both know that.
Proof please rather than your usual lies Rich! Or for that matter lies from your Marxist mates who are currently screwing New Zealand workers and failing to meet many of their election promises! also explain why under this government mince (a basic for many families) has gone from $8 for 500g to $11? Yet you still suffer under the delusion that Labour does a better job than National! Sure National could have done better but the present government are failing in almost everything they claimed they would fix and the lies from them and you won't make that fact go away Rich!
George
2020-01-13 19:07:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 20:09:35 -0600
Post by Tony
The previous government did not reduce or attempt to reduce the
minimum wage so far as I know. Can you provide evidence?
It is questionable whether this provides any economical stimulus.
That is not to say that a minimum wage is a bad idea but I suspect
the only value it has is to reduce hardship.
Minimum wage is used at startup.
Within 6 weeks I always got a rise from whatever the startup wage was.
The village/group idiot is blowing smoke
Loading...