- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Dude, where’s my economy?


NZ to stay in recession next year – OECD
New Zealand's economy will remain in recession next year before lower interest rates, increased government spending and higher exports help to stimulate gross domestic product growth, the OECD said. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, whose 30 members are mostly high-income countries, said in its biannual economic outlook that Australia's economic growth would likely to slow next year, while unemployment is set to jump, dented by the fallout from the financial crisis and a darkening outlook for the world economy. For New Zealand, the OECD forecast GDP growth at 0.5 per cent in 2008, cut by a third from its June report, and then contracting by 0.3 per cent in 2009, slashed from a previous forecast of 2.1 per cent growth.

Want to know why oil has flat-lined – because the suddenness of the shut down of the global economy is extreme, VERY extreme, look at our GDP growth rate slashed from 2.1% to (gulp) -.3. Ouch – and there are now predictions unemployment will be 8% within two years and the Chinese economy is looking at a massive drop in growth next year as well. I wonder if anyone of the 80 000 NZers who may be unemployed in 2 years in a mACTional work environment where the boss can sack you within 90 days, I wonder if on their list of concerns they will have incandescent lightbulbs or shower heads? Oh and as for National’s Private-Public-Partnership solution – the brilliant Jane Kelsey explains why they won’t help whatsofucking ever…

28 Comments:

At 26/11/08 7:47 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if anyone of the 80 000 NZers who may be unemployed in 2 years in a mACTional work environment where the boss can sack you within 90 days,

No, they will be mature enough to know that the world is in a recession, and people are losing their jobs everywhere, not just New Zealand.

They will also be mature enough to know that National, having just been elected into Government, had no role in making them unemployed, and that whilst Labour was in power, they couldn't prevent the reccession and layoffs either.

And if Labour was still in power, those 80 000 would still be getting laid off.

Of course, there will always be those immature types who either:
a) are politically unaware, and don't really realise the power Govt's exert in there everyday life, or:
b) are political ideologues, and will always blame opposing political parties for all the wrongs in the world, even if they weren't in power to commit them.

 
At 26/11/08 7:55 am, Blogger Bomber said...

Right - so you're saying Scott that those 80 000 who are now in the mACTional work place where the boss can sack them for nothing within 90 days that they won't be focusing on the nanny state bullshit, and will be facing the reality of the Daddy state?

 
At 26/11/08 7:57 am, Anonymous sdm said...

Further to anon 7.47's commnents.

The 90 day rule is basically bringing NZ into line with the rest of the OECD - only Denmark and NZ dont have that type of legislation.

What the ideologues on the left don't understand (many of whom wouldn't last 90 days running a business) is that there are actually fuckwits in the workforce. These fuckwits get given a job, and only then are their true colours discovered. Problem is, these fuckwits can actually cost money - they could be rude to customers (who then go elsewhere), fail to do their job efficiently, or whatever. So now the small business owner is losing money because of this fuckwit. Why can't s/he get rid of him? Its their business?

The idea that people will just rotate staff every ninety days is made by people who dont understand the way small business operates. The cost of recruitment and training outways any savings - therefore its not rational.

Now for PPPs.

Kelsey is an ideologue, her biases are well known. However, take the Vector Arena for instance. There was a need for a concert arena in Auckland, and having a PPP got the thing built and done.

Do you have a problem with that bomber?

 
At 26/11/08 8:00 am, Anonymous sdm said...

No bomber, I am saying that a boss wont sack them for 'nothing'. Got nothing to do with nanny or daddy state.

PS - i wasnt anon......

 
At 26/11/08 8:07 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two questions bomber:
Do you think these 80 000 would have lost their jobs if Labour had won the election?

Why are all these people being laid off now have no redundancy plans? How come, after nine years of a Labour Govt, why are people still being shafted under the Employment Contracts Act?

 
At 26/11/08 8:08 am, Blogger Bomber said...

Sure you weren't scotty, what the idealogues on the right with their TABOR fantasy's (can't wait to see you try and apologise for TABOR scott) and private prison fetishes don't get is that for workers in an 8% unemployment labour market getting sacked for no reason within 90 days is a massive step backwards for worker rights - you're a boss scott, you want all that power, we understand that, it highlights your bias on this issue. I'm embarrassed for you when you try this line out for size...The idea that people will just rotate staff every ninety days is made by people who dont understand the way small business operates. The cost of recruitment and training outways any savings - therefore its not rational. ... BULL-SHIT! You don't work those extra hours, shine the bosses arse in a labour intensive market well son those two hungry people behind you want that position and if you don't jump when the boss man like scotty here yells, well you find your way out the door.

 
At 26/11/08 8:16 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you're a boss scott, you want all that power,

But so are you bomber, so are you.

Are you saying all employers=bad
all employees=good.

What happens when the employee becomes an employer?
Do they have to take a Capitalist Pig course, or be indoctrinated or something?

 
At 26/11/08 8:37 am, Anonymous sdm said...

I wasnt Anon but whatever.

Its not about power. I don't get my rocks off walking around and telling people what to do. What its about is creating and running a business thats successful. Now the only way to do that is to have quality staff. So how do you achieve that? Conditions and pay. If i am shit to my staff, they either leave or dont work hard. It is in my interests to be a good employer (and the proof is the fact I have only had three staff leave in 5 years). Pay increases around 8 to 10%. All good.

"You don't work those extra hours"

I would work 10 to 15 hours more a week than my staff do. Business, especially at the moment, isn't easy.

"The idea that people will just rotate staff every ninety days is made by people who dont understand the way small business operates. The cost of recruitment and training outways any savings - therefore its not rational. ... BULL-SHIT!"

Huh? Are you denying there is a cost of recruitment and training? Why would I invest money in sendind my staff on courses when they start, only to get rid of them in 3 months. Its not rational....

"
Are you saying all employers=bad
all employees=good."

Anon - thats exactly his point. Problem is, if business goes under, or moves offshore, and the jobs disappear, then there is a cost. Tax revenue falls, for instance, and then who is going to pay for the pet projects that many on the left demand. Screwing business is called 'biting the hand that feeds'.

 
At 26/11/08 8:52 am, Blogger Bomber said...

But so are you bomber, so are you.
Not true

Huh? Are you denying there is a cost of recruitment and training? Why would I invest money in sendind my staff on courses when they start, only to get rid of them in 3 months. Its not rational....
After reading your very intense justification over why you aren't power hungry I'm sure anyone of the 80 000 NZers out of work would love to have you deciding whether or not they stay Scott. Asfor your 'it's not rational' I wonder if you are being simplistic on purpose - why do we have worker rights scott - if all you boss men are as pure as the driven snow, why do we have worker rights and why did workers have to fight bosses for those rights? To suggest that bosses in labour intensive industry won't misuse this law to find only the hungriest most exploitable and desperate people suggests you are being incredibly selective in your thinking.

 
At 26/11/08 8:55 am, Blogger Bomber said...

PS - how DARE you write Kelsey off like that you jumped up little neo-con, you're smarter than her are you scott?

 
At 26/11/08 8:57 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What its about is creating and running a business thats successful

Your business is so successful you can waste a lot of time trolling left wing blog sites, how lucky for you.

What is the name of this successful business?

Screwing business is called 'biting the hand that feeds'.

Not it's not. Not screwing business I mean. It's about being fair, ensuring employment agreements are not one-sided and most of all its about thinking of people as human beings not human 'resources'.

 
At 26/11/08 9:05 am, Anonymous sdm said...

I work in the construction industry which is extremely labour intensive. I employ people ranging from qualified builders to labourers (just out of school).

Now if I employ somebody at the bottom of the ladder (labourer) then I send them on safety and first aid courses at my expense. I also then go out and buy them basic equipment that they need (tool belt, hammer etc). I will also give them clothes etc, all in all I might spend $700 on them. Then what I try and do is encourage them into training such as a apprenticeship - because the higher their skill level the better they are. The way I try and do it is to subsidize their apprenticeship cost. Plus there is my expense of investing my time in finding, recruiting and on site training.

Where is the incentive to get rid of them? I'd be losing my investment in them. To suggest I would get rid of them for 'no reason' defies basic business logic.

Shit if somebody wants temporary labour they call Allied Work force or whoever. Why go to the trouble of employing somebody only to get rid of them in 90 days and lose the investment.

What you are suggesting is that 'shit staff' don't exist. My question to you is if you accept that there are 'shit staff', what rights do you afford the employer to protect his business.

PS: Remember this only applies to small businesses. We are not talking about McDonalds here...

 
At 26/11/08 9:06 am, Anonymous Mark said...

"PS - how DARE you write Kelsey off like that you jumped up little neo-con, you're smarter than her are you scott?" What's with the pejorative terms Bomber? Grow up man.

 
At 26/11/08 9:13 am, Anonymous sdm said...

"PS - how DARE you write Kelsey off like that you jumped up little neo-con, you're smarter than her are you scott?"

Im not writing her off. She has her postion......but its not surprising the stance she takes. And don't call me a neo-con - it simply isnt true...


"
Not it's not. Not screwing business I mean. It's about being fair, ensuring employment agreements are not one-sided and most of all its about thinking of people as human beings not human 'resources'."

100% agree. Employment contracts need to be fair to both employee AND employer. The employer has just as much rights to protect themselves as employees do...

 
At 26/11/08 9:51 am, Blogger Bomber said...

I work in the construction industry which is extremely labour intensive. I employ people ranging from qualified builders to labourers (just out of school).

Now if I employ somebody at the bottom of the ladder (labourer) then I send them on safety and first aid courses at my expense. I also then go out and buy them basic equipment that they need (tool belt, hammer etc). I will also give them clothes etc, all in all I might spend $700 on them. Then what I try and do is encourage them into training such as a apprenticeship - because the higher their skill level the better they are. The way I try and do it is to subsidize their apprenticeship cost. Plus there is my expense of investing my time in finding, recruiting and on site training.

Where is the incentive to get rid of them? I'd be losing my investment in them. To suggest I would get rid of them for 'no reason' defies basic business logic.

Shit if somebody wants temporary labour they call Allied Work force or whoever. Why go to the trouble of employing somebody only to get rid of them in 90 days and lose the investment.

What you are suggesting is that 'shit staff' don't exist. My question to you is if you accept that there are 'shit staff', what rights do you afford the employer to protect his business.

PS: Remember this only applies to small businesses. We are not talking about McDonalds here...

While scott is running for the boss man of the year award, I'd like to point out that while scott may play by the rules many do not and the safety stuff becomes very quickly secondary - remind me again scott didn't the OECD rank NZ as number 1 for ease of doing busniess and ranked us as number 5 for competitiveness? And yet you want the power to sack any worker you like within 90 days - as much as I want to hear scott drone on about how great a boss he is, and how it isn't rational to sack them, what I did ask was what will the 80 000 desperate, hungry and open to exploitation unemployed NZers feel about working in a mACTional labour market where scott can fire them for no reason within 90 days.

 
At 26/11/08 9:54 am, Blogger Bomber said...

"PS - how DARE you write Kelsey off like that you jumped up little neo-con, you're smarter than her are you scott?" What's with the pejorative terms Bomber? Grow up man.
Not at all Mark, I just cant stand hearing a jumped up little right winger like scott wipe someone of Kelsey's standing off with a single line as if anything she has to add to the debate over PPP's is somehow worthless.

 
At 26/11/08 10:33 am, Anonymous sdm said...

"
While scott is running for the boss man of the year award, I'd like to point out that while scott may play by the rules many do not and the safety stuff becomes very quickly secondary - remind me again scott didn't the OECD rank NZ as number 1 for ease of doing busniess and ranked us as number 5 for competitiveness? And yet you want the power to sack any worker you like within 90 days - as much as I want to hear scott drone on about how great a boss he is, and how it isn't rational to sack them, what I did ask was what will the 80 000 desperate, hungry and open to exploitation unemployed NZers feel about working in a mACTional labour market where scott can fire them for no reason within 90 days."

You still havent answered my two questions.

1) In an environment where business is tough, what rights would you afford businesses to protect themselves against the undue influence of 'shit staff'?

2) Why would you knowingly rotate staff after ninety days 'with no reason' when it is financially inefficient (especially when you can get temporary labour hire)

I'd also like to point out that not having this policy could INCREASE unemployment. If bad staff lead to business failure, people lose jobs.


"I just cant stand hearing a jumped up little right winger like scott wipe someone of Kelsey's standing off with a single line as if anything she has to add to the debate over PPP's is somehow worthless."

Whatever. I dont like people with zero business experiance preaching as if they are experts.......

Kelsey has her biases - anyone who has read her work will tell you that. My point was that while she has someting valuable to contribute to the debate, she cant be relied upon to be objective.

 
At 26/11/08 10:59 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I still want to know what SDMs business is called and if he is so busy running it successfully he can spend a great deal of time posting such drivel.

 
At 26/11/08 11:13 am, Blogger Bomber said...

You still havent answered my two questions.
You still haven't answered my questions - why do we have workers rights if all the bosses are as kind and amazing as you scott? And why didn't all those kind bosses just give workers those rights and why did workers have to fight for those rights scott? You also haven't explained the OECD rankings, they say it's better to do business here than most countries yet you're trying to tell us why you need the power to sack someone for anything within 90 days.

I'd also like to point out that not having this policy could INCREASE unemployment. If bad staff lead to business failure, people lose jobs.
LOL - Let's try telling that to the 80 000 unemployed NZers who will face this new erosion of their rights shall we scott?

Whatever. I dont like people with zero business experiance preaching as if they are experts.......
I have spent time as a Union delegate and have seen exactly the sorts of bosses who will misuse this legislation so don't try and be patronizing, you don't have the wit for it scott.

Kelsey has her biases - anyone who has read her work will tell you that. My point was that while she has someting valuable to contribute to the debate, she cant be relied upon to be objective.
Oh isn't that the backpeddle of the week - you didn't say anything of the sort Scott..Kelsey is an ideologue, her biases are well known...you wrote her off in one sentence, you didn't say ... My point was that while she has someting valuable to contribute to the debate, she cant be relied upon to be objective and in fact you have yet to actually counter anything she said in that entire 10 minutes only we shouldn't listen to her because she is an ideologue.

 
At 26/11/08 11:38 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"PS - how DARE you write Kelsey off like that you jumped up little neo-con, you're smarter than her are you scott?"

Kelsey is a socialist what the fuck did you expect her to say.

Anybody who has worked in the public sector knows what kind of inefficiencies go on when they're using unaccountable taxpayer money to create work.

Thankfully her opinion will count for naught with the new daddy state.

 
At 26/11/08 11:54 am, Anonymous sdm said...

anon: you post anonymously but yet you want my personal details. Get fucked. You would probably tag it.

"I have spent time as a Union delegate and have seen exactly the sorts of bosses who will misuse this legislation so don't try and be patronizing, you don't have the wit for it scott."

Did you spend your time dealing with companies with more or less than 20 staff. Remember this law only applies to small businesses. Union delegate isnt business experiance....

What evidence do you have that the 90 day law has resulted in abuse in other countries.

"LOL - Let's try telling that to the 80 000 unemployed NZers who will face this new erosion of their rights shall we scott? "

Do you give a fuck about business failure that is attributable to shit staff.? You said before, you hate rich people, so you dont give a shit.....

Why would an employer take a risk on employing someone, or give someone a chance, if they had no 'out'?

Now, workers have rights to protect them from being exploited. I dont think giving someone an opportunity to prove themselves is exploitation.

Do employers have rights?

 
At 26/11/08 12:45 pm, Anonymous nepenthe said...

anon@8.07 - Labour had new policy for minimum redundancy payments during the election. Now we won't get that. I'm sure every one will be happy with the brown tories and the neo-liberal nutjobs when there boss says here's your redundancy payment take it or leave it. As to the Employment contracts people are no longer being shafted under it. Labour brought in the employment relations act years and years ago, but I think they could have gone further in strengthing worker's rights and they were going to with the policy they announced during the election as part of their response to the financial crisis, but now we get a reversal of worker's rights just like we got in the nineties. You know the stuff that lead to dropping wages, slow economic growth and high unemployment. Now in this new century we seem destined to repeat the mistakes we made at the end of last century.

 
At 26/11/08 3:23 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon: you post anonymously but yet you want my personal details. Get fucked. You would probably tag it.

No, we just don't believe you!

 
At 26/11/08 4:11 pm, Anonymous sdm said...

anon: thats fine, i wont lose any sleep over it....

 
At 26/11/08 6:06 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bomber seems to be ignoring the fact that the 90 day rule only applies to very small businesses.

 
At 26/11/08 6:19 pm, Anonymous sdm said...

Anon 6.06. I get that same impression.

 
At 28/11/08 7:29 am, Blogger Sam said...

But what's a small business? A certain level of staff? Wouldn't that then perhaps encourage some businesses to fire staff until they meet the criteria in order to reduce costs by being able to hire someone, pay them fuck all, then fire them after 3 months?

I don't see how this law can be restricted to the very ambiguous term of 'small business' and i'd be surprised if it lasted very long.

As for deriding Jane Kelsey for being 'biased' and therefore exempting her contributions from the discussion; grow up. Every one has a bias, even your precious John Key and i don't see you giving his ideas similar treatment. Jane Kelsey is our Noam Chomsky in my opinion - the most important academic working today. She has contributed more to the knowledge and debate of society and politics than any of you, or I, or John Key and his Tory brigade of razor-wielding nutjobs could ever hope to do. So get a loan and buy a clue; stop shutting down debate just because you think she's a "socialist".

 
At 28/11/08 7:39 am, Blogger Bomber said...

Anon 6.06. I get that same impression.

Oh pa-lease - I'm well aware of what limitations National placed on this legislation before the election and would not be surprised if it is expanded to the entire labour market now, but seeing as a large chunk of the economy is small business, trying to suggest this limitation won't be a major impact when small business is such a large part of our labour market simply isn't valid.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home