We noticed this comment, complete with links on Kiwiblog last night. It's succinct, it's backed by evidence, and more than anything, it provides a convincing argument AGAINST Labour's plan to raise the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour within a year of taking office - check this out:
We couldn't agree more. The New Zealand economy is still very, very fragile. A 15% increase to the minimum wage is not only unsustainable in our ever-humble opinion; it's economic sabotage. If an increase of half of that magnitude could not be countenanced in 2006 when the economy was stronger, how can Labour even consider inflicting double the damage now?
The answer is simple. It is nothing but a desperate election bribe.
Monday, May 23, 2011
12 comments:
-
Wide-awake said...
-
The minimum wage issue has you panicked and quite rightly.
Workers will support Labours proposal in droves and switch their vote from the grasping Nats to the generous Labour Party.
You're in trouble here. -
May 23, 2011 8:17 AM
-
Inventory2 said...
-
Who are all tese people writing in Robert Guyton style under odd psedonyms?
-
May 23, 2011 8:25 AM
-
PM of NZ said...
-
IV2, maybe you need to talk to Whale about how to monitor IP addresses. My guess would be the posts come from one or two computers.
ps if you look at your stat counter closely, in some instances you can work out which IPs post at which times. -
May 23, 2011 8:37 AM
-
Ministy of Control said...
-
Mustn't allow criticism!
Batter dissenting voices into the dirt!
Track them down!
Rule with the Iron Fist!
We are Right!!! -
May 23, 2011 8:55 AM
-
Inventory2 said...
-
No need for that MoC; the sentence structure is a dead giveaway.
-
May 23, 2011 8:58 AM
-
Luke said...
-
Re this post: (and 95% of others) Your ever humble opinion is often wrong and always biased so there's not a lot of credibility in what you say. Smarter readers think of it as propaganda.
-
May 23, 2011 11:59 AM
-
slightlyrighty said...
-
Luke.
As the author of the initial post on Kiwiblog. I have taken the information from the Cabinet Papers discussed by a Labour Government and posted on a government website. This took 5 minutes and our friend Mr Google.
Smarter readers would look at what Labour are promising while in opposition, as opposed to what they did while in government and wonder where the credibility is/ -
May 23, 2011 12:36 PM
-
Inventory2 said...
-
@ Luke - your opinion, humble or not, is always welcome. Those who read this blog regularly would have little doubt as to the leanings of the author.
-
May 23, 2011 12:46 PM
-
Inventory2 said...
-
@ slightlyrighty - thanks for joining the debate; hope you don't mind your comment being highlighted elsewhere, but I found it compelling.
-
May 23, 2011 12:48 PM
-
Luke said...
-
Smarter readers might also look at what National promised in opposition versus what they are doing in government. National have reached the point of desperation only 2.5 years into their first term. Emmerson had a wonderful cartoon last week referencing treading water which applies well. Labour on the other hand are creating and testing new ideas with the limited resources National are going to leave in its wake. It's the old thinking liberal progressive versus unthinking conservative traditionalist thing again...
-
May 23, 2011 1:38 PM
-
Beady-eyed Bushman said...
-
Here's something for you to wrap your chompers around Inventory2. As a Christian, you'll have a view on Key's faith or lack there-of.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10727378 -
May 23, 2011 10:03 PM
-
Cornelius said...
-
This wage increase thing sounds exactly like what Qarase and his bunch of racist crooks got up to in Fiji, pre-election, before Frank gave them the heave ho.
Only thing different was that Qarase bribed the electorate with $30,000,000 worth of spades, forks, chainsaws, weed eaters, etc. Then blamed that on PS Agriculture who took the fall and went to jail for 4 years.
The only difference I can see between Fiji & NZ politics is the sophistication of the crookery. -
May 24, 2011 7:51 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
May 22nd, 2011 at 8:11 pm
In 2006, when Labour were in government and reviewed the minimum wage, when the unions were asking for an increase to $12/hr, and settled for an increase to $11.25/hr, citing “considers that Option 3C ($12.00 an hour), which is above the rate needed to maintain relativity to the average wage, would increase the likelihood of constraining potential employment growth;”
http://www.dol.govt.nz/er/pay/backgroundpapers/POL-Min-06-2821-MinimumWageReview2006-Ref-CBC-06-352.pdf
In 2007, a further Labour led revue contained the following……
option 5: $15.00 per hour (or $520 per week):
1.5.1 this would very strongly improve relative levels of fairness, protection, income distribution, and work incentives;
1.5.2 this option could affect 452,900 workers;
1.5.3 if it were to be pursued, there could be a potential constraint on job
growth of up to 0.6%, the national weekly wage bill could increase by
3.74%, and it would have a potential inflationary impact of 1.63%;
http://www.dol.govt.nz/er/pay/backgroundpapers/POL-Min-07-2824.pdf
This proves 2 things:
1. That Labour actually do know the flow on effects of their policy decisions
2. They don’t care about the flow on effects of their decisions.
They recognise that raising the minimum wage beyond the ability of the economy will constraint job growth and raise inflation, yet they are happy to go ahead with it if they can remain in power. This is disgusting behavior.