An immigrant woman’s paradise
There was an odd story from the Herald today on an immigration debate in Auckland. Keith was at the debate and was one of the most vocal speakers there, outlining the Green’s strong human rights stance on immigration. Yet he got no mention at all in the article that found space to note the attendance of every other speaker, even Bernie Ogilvy from the Kiwi Party.
Instead most of the article focused on Peter Brown:
New Zealand First says it will not welcome immigrants if they come from societies with a “class system” or where women are treated as subservient to men.
The irony of this platform in relation to Brown’s English heritage was apparently lost on him.
However, it’s a fair point; we should only want immigrants from nations with full equality to come to our little pacific paradise where women are paid a full 86 percent of what men earn and claim an impressive 8.65% of company directorships among New Zealand’s big companies. Not to mention our clean record on gendered violence, the objectification of women and political representation of women in parties like New Zealand First. Why wouldn’t women from nations with gender equality flock here to Aotearoa?
September 30th, 2008 at 6:53 am
That will change when women come more into the fields of employment where men now easily get $25-35 per hour.
Namely the trades.
Why are women so reluctant to train up to be electicians, plumbers, carpenters, computer repair people, electronic specialists, engineering fabricators, spray painters, riggers, machine operators,etc.,etc.?
There will always be a gap as long as women chase the few big ticket jobs such as layers, accountants, airline pilots, etc. when the who of the middle income group seems to be ignored by them.
Why do women settle for low paid $12 menial jobs such as cleaning, child care, bus driving, etc.
When with training (after all men can learn a trade so for women it should be a breeze) a whole gamut of higher paid jobs become available.
And why so few women in the police force? Pay is not unreasonable.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Righto Frog;
Instead of ranting in faux outrage how about you tell us how the Greens would fix this “imbalance”.
There is a challenge for you, lets see how good you are at providing solutions for a change.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:14 am
gee frog..!
do you think you will ever do any stories on the biggest story in decades..?
(good that you are keeping us up to speed on the ‘doings’ of hollywood actors tho’..
..eh..?..)
..and hey..with a bit of hindsight..
..d’yareckon you should have paid more attention to/passed on..my warnings of exactly this..?
the first of which i posted on 4/8/06..
(that’s ‘06′..eh..?)
you have also studiously ignored my intermittant exhortations to ‘cover this’/warn your green readers..
in a country with such a f*cked/useless mainstream media..
..don’t you see yourself as having some ‘green’ responsibilities/duties in that area..?
..(and hey..!..had you listened to me..your mp’s super scheme would be looking much healthier/not as sick..eh..?
..had you followed my exhortations to sell your houses..
..at what was the top of the market..
..eh..?
..as it is now..
..residential real estate will have to fall at least 40-50%..
..to return to historical parities to incomes etc..
whoar.!
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 30th, 2008 at 8:15 am
gee frog..!
do you think you will ever do any stories on the biggest story in decades..?
(good that you are keeping us up to speed on the ‘doings’ of hollywood actors tho’..
..eh..?..)
..and hey..with a bit of hindsight..
..d’yareckon you should have paid more attention to/passed on..my warnings of exactly this..?
the first of which i posted on 4/8/06..
(that’s ‘06′..eh..?)
you have also studiously ignored my intermittant exhortations to ‘cover this’/warn your green readers..
in a country with such a fecked/useless mainstream media..
..don’t you see yourself as having some ‘green’ responsibilities/duties in that area..?
..(and hey..!..had you listened to me..your mp’s super scheme would be looking much healthier/not as sick..eh..?
..had you followed my exhortations to sell your houses..
..at what was the top of the market..
..eh..?
..as it is now..
..residential real estate will have to fall at least 40-50%..
..to return to historical parities to incomes etc..
whoar.!
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 30th, 2008 at 9:03 am
“Keith was at the debate and was one of the most vocal speakers there, outlining the Green’s strong human rights stance on immigration.”
…………………….
Unfortunately immigrants just want a better life like everyone else. Presumably Keith thinks it is selfish to want to shut the door and keep the population low (the world population was 1.6 million at the turn of last century versus over 6.1 million now).
Peter Brown doesn’t come across well. I think that people are allowed to be a bit racist (ie it is normal to be concerned about new groups of people arriving… especially en masse As Aucklands population is expected to increase to [__ by__?]) , but NZ First should concentrate on other aspects (ie the affects rather than the people).
Quoting Rod Oram:
In recent years Auckland has ranked fifth and Wellington 12th in the annual global
quality of city life rankings by Mercer, a US consultancy.
But Auckland, more than Wellington, faces a challenge. Fast population growth over
the past decade has strained infrastructure, boosted house prices and reduced the
quality of life in the Auckland region. Addressing such issues goes right to the heart
of the long-term strategies of the region’s councils for obvious economic and social
reasons.
Auckland’s ambition to become a truly international metropolis depends in part on
maintaining the quality of life, which in turn requires bold vision, sound strategies,
good regulatory processes and citizen commitment. Clearly, the RMA is a critical tool
to help achieve those goals, which in turn will then help attract migrants, and help
keep existing residents here. On present forecasts, the region could have a
population of around 2m by 2050, a 65% rise from current levels, suggesting the
challenges will be formidable.
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0705/RMA__Oram_Paper_May_2007.pdf
September 30th, 2008 at 9:08 am
This again demonstrates the ligatures behind the failure of the “Green ” Party to protect the Kiwi way of life (Camp Ground etc) ;because of the parties international ambitions.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:38 am
“Why are women so reluctant to train up to be electicians, plumbers, carpenters, computer repair people, electronic specialists, engineering fabricators, spray painters, riggers, machine operators,etc.,etc.?”
Oh I see, it’s all women’s fault. They aren’t in male-dominated professions that get paid more, instead choosing to be teachers, nurses etc. Couldn’t be that these professions get paid less because they are female-dominated. ‘Course not, after all we are an egalitarian society, just ask Peter Brown. And women who do train as carpenters and the like don’t get denigrated or abused on job sites, do they? Us decent Kiwis don’t do things like that (except in our homes and streets, of course).
“Why do women settle for low paid $12 menial jobs such as cleaning, child care, bus driving, etc.”
Childcare is “menial”? You don’t value kids much then?
“And why so few women in the police force?”
Maybe you should ask Brad Shipton.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Sam
I had no idea that you thought women were such weak individuals.
Or perhaps you are advocating that women are paid more than men?
September 30th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Another twist by Sam,
It is not the “fault” of anybody.
A lot of stereotyping in your comment, Sam. Building sites are not for wimpy women, dont think the feminist will agree with you.
Maybe the word “menial” was not the best choice. Better to have used low paid.
And yes if looking after kids is so poor paying, change to another proffession. Simple really. The people who want their kids looked after will pay the going rate and if that rate goes up because of staff shortages, that is the market. While people (including males) will accept low pay, that is what they will get.
The power to increase an individual’s wages lies in their own hands. upskill and get a better job.
Now, what excuse could it be next?
colonialism?
September 30th, 2008 at 11:37 am
“Why are women so reluctant to train…”
“There will always be a gap as long as women chase the few big ticket jobs …”
“Why do women settle for…”
If this isn’t laying the blame for women being paid less on women, I don’t know what is.
Sorry guys, I live in the real world, not the fantasy of individualists where the market sorts everything out nicely.
“Building sites are not for wimpy women”
Bloody wimps - if they can’t handle violence and abuse they deserve to be paid less.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Sam
“Sorry guys, I live in the real world”
Thats the very point Sam, you DON’T live in the real world at all.
The world you want to live in is some kind PC utopia, the reality is that is never going to happen.
There are simply some jobs that many women have no interest in just as there are many jobs that men have no desire to take up.
There is NOTHING stopping a woman applying to become a builder or plumber, indeed I know of one young lady in my home town who is doing a fantastic job as an apprentice plumber and good on her but you cannot blame the lack of female tradesmen on some sort of conspiracy.
You posed the question (as the left always do) about valuing the work of mother or fathers poorly, of course to suggest that anybody values that work poorly is ridiculous however it is not the type of work one should be looking to be paid for doing.
If YOU want kids then you should be able to care for them and provide for them, it is not my job to supply you or anybody else with an income just so they can continue to produce children that they cannot afford.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
BB,
wasting time with Sam i’m afraid, he will always be living in the past with stereotypical examples of why something or other wont work, rather then look at empowering women to take up the challenge of better paid work.
The power rests with women to change, so let them take advantage and change, As you say there is absolutely nothing but nothing to stop women to take on any type of higher paid work.
The work place (including buidling sites) is a pretty women friendly place.
Maybe you need to visit a few Sam.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Sam: snap.
The rest: snore, yawn, fart, scratch. Sorry, were you talking? You people are like unwanted guests who never leave. Still, you must love the greens, you spend so much of your time here.
Either that, or you’re unemployed.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
“female tradesmen”
Ho ho ho!
“wasting time with Sam i’m afraid, he will always be living in the past…”
Ah, the wonderful optimism of the believers in inviobale rules of historical progress! It’s modern so it must be better!
“The work place (including buidling sites) is a pretty women friendly place.
Maybe you need to visit a few Sam.”
The building site I used to work on wasn’t, not a women to be seen or heard of save in the violently sexist jokes and remarks. Neither was the one a carpenter friend of mine worked on when her co-worker punched her in the face for not shutting up.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Sam
Have you ever considered that one of the reasons women are paid less might be because the left have introduced legislation that ensures there will always been a wage gap?
And BTW, it seems I was right about your low opinion of women.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
We are not served well by our statisticians. If women are now getting 85% of what men earn that is currently cause of celebration.
First, ten or twelve years ago young women without skills were earning considerably more than equivalent young males. They were working in banks rather than digging ditches.
Secondly at the time I did that study a US study found that although women were earning only 65% of the average wage this failed to account for the dynamics.
Ones wage depends on how long one has been in the workforce. More years, more pay.
We are still moving towards a situation where women enter the workforce as early as men and do not take time out. Telecommuting is assisting this in the US but we are slow off the mark.
The US studies showed that if you correct for years in the workforce women were receiving equal pay and Black skilled women were being paid more that their white male equivalents.
The angel is in the detail.
So do those who advocate equal pay want to lower the wages of unskilled young women to match those of men?
September 30th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
There’s some good discussion of sexism in pay rates at the Hand Mirror.
Oh, and Owen, have you got any references for your thoughts there?
September 30th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“Ones wage depends on how long one has been in the workforce. More years, more pay.”
So, according to you MShane, it is perfectly ok that women, who are required to take off at least some time to have babies, are paid less than men, who can work right through additions to their family. We should, in the end, just realise that we are paid the same if we balance out our time off work (off “paid” work). Of course, that wonderfully wishful thinking doesn’t put more food on the table, or clothes on our kids backs. But it sure make us feel valued by society!!!
September 30th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
>>who are required to take off at least some time to have babies
They are not “required” to have babies. Some, not all, choose to do so. It is also not compulsory to stay with the baby for years on end, but many choose to do so.
What you’re saying is you want me to pay for it. Nice. Perhaps you could pay for my kids, then we’re even.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
But I don’t want to have children so why should I have to pay for some woman who wants to be a baby factory.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Meghan,
As I hava addressed on this blog several times previously, it is true that there is a glass celling for women in male dominated companies, though there is also a much thicker glass ceiling for males in female dominated companies, both of these occurances are injust but neither are the cause of wage discrepancy.
The first cause, as addressed here, is the choice of occupation, if you were to compare individuals involved in the same jobs of the same time period, working the same hours at the same quality i doubt you would find any pay differences.
The second, and biggist cause, is the ability of women to bare children and the tendancy in this society for women to subsiquently take care of those children for prolonged periods of time. This makes women a significantly more risky investment for high payed possistions where low redundancy is a neccacary requirement. It is a totally locical and economical decision that leads to women being victimised in their search for jobs; quite simply, their labour is more risky and as such any economicly minded person would be less willing to pay that indiviual the same rate as another individual which produces the same quality with less inherant risk. If a individual was post-menopausal or made infertile doe to other facilities then, assuming the same experiance and all other variables, her economic value would be the same as an equivlent male.
Surprise surprise, the world of economics is accually dominated by economic decisions rather than the chauvanism you choose to see.
Its exactly the same principle of having two individuals which are exactly equal except for that one has aids, the ovious choice is to choose the one without aids as that individual is less likley to get ill and more likley to stay at the job longer, as such being a far better investment. simple economics.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
… and that is why ‘wage equality’ and ‘greater paid parential leave’ are contradicting goals.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
oh..btw..ignore turnip..
..it is a rightwing troll..usually resident at kiwiblog..
nothing more..nothing less..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 30th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Turnip8 said: But I don’t want to have children so why should I have to pay for some woman who wants to be a baby factory.
If we all took that attitude, our species would not survive. I have no biological children (although I do have two stepsons for whom I have provided as if they were my own).
I consider it is my social responsibility to pay, via my tax, for children whose parents cannot afford to give them a great start in life, to help those children to have one.
We are talking about kids here - it is not their fault if they are born into an abusive and/or poor family. But is it not the responsibility of society as a whole to give them the best chance to overcome that?
As kids, they don’t have the same economic choices we adults do.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
phool the internet demon sprays more delusional foam;
“..it is a rightwing troll..usually resident at kiwiblog..”
September 30th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
So once again we see that there is nothing green about Toad, since the human population is doing fine, in fact some would say too fine. If we all follow the Toad plan we should have more and more and more and more and more children, whats the world going to be like when there are 20 billion humans living on the planet Toad??
Phil get a job and pay some tax.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
toad,
Absolute bull; how is that in any way correct? our species, and almost every other species, focus mainly on ones own youth. If i didint care about my neighbours child and they were unable to support that child it may be detrimental, ethicly, for society but by no means would it be detrimental for the continuation of the human species, infact it would probally be benificial!
September 30th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Turnip & Sapient:
You guys are confusing local with global. New Zealand has an ecological carrying capacity of about 6 million people without resource overshoot. So we can accomodate about 1.5 times the current population (as long as they don’t all live in Auckland)!
Globally, it is a different issue, with many parts of the world already seriously overshooting their ecological carrying capacity - Japan, Korea, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland being prime examples.
New Zealand is not in that category, and as long as our birth rate remains below replacement level, and we do not accept massive immigration, we do not have a problem domestically in that regard.
New Zealand does need to take some leadership on the international stage re this though.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Toad,
I was not aware i had mentioned anything about population levels on this thread, but thanks for replying to a post i didint make.
But aslong as we are on the topic of population; why should we sit at the carrying cappacity? Why should we sit at the maximum carrying population? why not sit at half of that population? or a quarter? why not sit at a fraction of carrying capacity, have plenty of resources, and a thriving environment?
Why must New Zealand accomodate more people and lower our standard of living? why should we sacrifice our environment for extra population? why should we not be a bastion of sustainability and balance with nature in a desert of polution and overpopulation?
Reguardless of if we let people in and ruin our country, the world population will continue to increase and the resources will be used up just as fast if nor faster due to the extra consumption due to having more here.
The masses in the countries over sustainable levels are going to starve and die unless they invade other countries and take their resources, eaither way there are going to ba massive deaths due to starvation. There is no reason we should save afew of them at the cost of inflicting the same apon our own unless doing so guaranties us safty from invading armies.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
As I know a few immigrant women, and indeed am trying to help a family of my acquaintance get a wife, her son & her daughter into the country from Fiji; I can say with reasonable certainty that immigrant women want to come here, because wherever they are coming from is far worse than anything I’ve ever experienced in discrimination here.
And I have seen some, believe me.
I am a woman who has changed careers mid-life, struggled to upskill myself, (graduating twice in the past 5 years …) and the most I have been paid, in the casual jobs I took on while I was studying, was $15/hour.
I have worked in film, theatre, office cleaning, restaurant cleaning, journalism, retail, and public service office jobs, whilst caring for children and studying part or full time, as jobs came and went.
I took the employment I could get, which was dependent on such factors as access to transport and childcare, as is the wont of many a working mother.
Sam B: very good points, and I appreciate you jumping in here, where the temperature is overcooked at the present time!
Gerritt, Big Bro, Owen McShane:
]
Sam does know a lot of women who work in untraditional ways.
I am one of them!
To state that he appears to want to hold women back is laughable at best, and deeply unfunny at the level with which I appreciate his experiences of life and his at times mordant sense of humour, which I share.
[Sam, this is the one I owe you, from such attacks on me that you have defended
However much feminism has advanced it’s cause in the past 50 years, women will still suffer from the misogyny of men who will continue to make ‘othering’ statements about women who they perceive as less fit or deserving in society, compared to themselves.
This is still discrimination, this is still patriarchy, and this is still what a feminist looks like, fighting the same old war against putdowns, smears, ridicule and blaming the victim.
Yes, some women are employed as Police officers; some men are employed as Nurses, particularly within the psych settings.
That our society values the death-defying antics of the Police over the death-defying antics of nurse boggles my mind, especially given the steady flow of trained nurses heading overseas; pay our Nurses more, and train our Police better, and the situation might improve for both men and women in those careers.
It’s not about how hard you work in your job, in the end, it’s about how society values work that can primarily be done by women (or your mum …), against ‘men’s work’, which appears to be defined more by the exclusion of women from an occupational category than any objective scaling of the occupational difficulty/length of training/type of work required.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
katie,
congrats; the most ive ever got is minimum wage, but then again, most of that is traditionally ‘female’ work, lol.
Wage levels are not set by how society values certain areas of work; wages are set by levels of demand for certain work compared to levels of supply. If less people trained up as nurses then nurses would get greater pay up to the limit of their supposed value (which knowing just how much doctors love to avoid the work of nurses; would be relativly high). If we had more educated people vying for the high paying jobs without a increase in demand then the wages would plumet. Yes, social expectations play a role in what jobs become open and who changes their skill-sets to where, but social expectations do not play a dirrect role in setting wages. or another example; prostitutes get payed alot for menial labour because of the relative demand to supply ratio, a ratio that exists because of social sanctions, the social sanctions dont set the wage, the amount of people willing to break the social sanctions does. Kinda like how the bar prostitution that the majority of teenage girls particiapate in, no money changes hands, only afew drinks, but it is prostitution all the same, though because no type one money payment changes hands the social sanctions are smaller and the supply, so long as your not entirly unattractive, is plentyful and as such the price is only about three drinks.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:44 am
katie,
You embody what I have been saying. If you, as an individual, want to be paid more change vocation and train for something better.
The only alternative is to do nothing and expect that society will make up the 20% shortfall by positive dicrimination (All women are to be paid 20% above the award rate for that job).
Now Sam can have all the excuses (building sites are women unfriendly places) he wants but that is not going to get women higher wages.
Notice he has no alternative plan. He wants to point out the wage gap, but offer no method or means to close it. Just a load of cliches that women cant work in the trades. Feminist should be up in arms!
Only one thing will get women pay parity and that is women taking individual responsibility to upskill.
Which, as sapient has so elequently pointed out, will lead to higher pay for those low paid jobs as staff resources to fill those vacancies diminish.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:13 am
“wages are set by levels of demand for certain work compared to levels of supply.”
If that were true wages for fruit pickers, nurses and retirement home workers would be a lot higher. Wage levels have an awful lot to do with the power of workers to demand higher wages. The ‘free market’ only exists in people’s imaginations - it’s nice and simple, easy to understand and plain wrong.
By the way, did you see the woman in the DomPost yesterday talking about how hard it was to get a motor mechanic apprenticeship? She seemed to share my belief that it was sexism that put employers off. But of course, there’s no sexism in the free market, is there? It’s just a figment of people’s imagination.
BB - stop being silly, I said the market weas unfair, not that women aren’t capable.
Gerrit - I didn’t say women “can’t” work intrades, I said barriers are off-putting and I do have an alternative plan - scrap capitalism! (alternative enough for you?)
October 1st, 2008 at 9:33 am
What rubbish Sam all you are showing us is that you are opposed to capitalism.
Capitalism is the best method for efficiently distributing resources thoughout society. How exactly does your communism achieve a better result at distributing resources. This includes wage levels.
Sam said:
“wages are set by levels of demand for certain work compared to levels of supply.
If that were true wages for fruit pickers, nurses and retirement home workers would be a lot higher. Wage levels have an awful lot to do with the power of workers to demand higher wages. The ‘free market’ only exists in people’s imaginations - it’s nice and simple, easy to understand and plain wrong.”
Please give us some evidence for why the free market only exists in peoples imaginations. Workers can demand higher wages because of supply and demand. Why do software engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants etc earn more than fruit pickers. There are less of them competing for jobs. You could start a software company tomorrow in Auckland Sam and offer jobs for software engineers at the minimum wage if you wanted, this doesn’t mean anyone will actually show up. The free market has set a price for that labour. The free market has also set a price for the Fruit pickers labour. The farmer needs to pay people to pick his fruit he sets a wage if someone is willing to work at that job for that wage then the farmer will get a worker. Where in NZ are their fruit trees with rotting fruit on them because nobody would work to pick the fruit?
Note the New Zealand government price fixes the labour market by having a minimum wage, in economic down times this minimum wage can result in massive unemployment as was seen during the great depression.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:23 am
Wow nothing gets you righties going quicker than a debate about women’s place in society. Except abortion, if I remember correctly (which is the same issue, really). It’s great that all you rightymen have the answer to the feminist struggle. If only we would stop yapping about equality and the burden of balancing childrearing and work and advancing our careers, and other such issues that confront us everyday (in the real world, not the ‘women aren’t required to have babies’ world that some of you live in), we would all be living in a perfect world!
Hurrah!!
October 1st, 2008 at 10:40 am
Ok, let’s talk about capitalism
Can you see any problem that a free market economy can create ?
Do you think that some regulation are necessary ?
If so, what are the minimum set of regulations required to achieved your view of an ideal (& realist) society ?
October 1st, 2008 at 11:07 am
No one is forcing you to reproduce, Meghan. In fact, it would be more green not to reproduce. There are far too many humans as there is.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:21 am
ah BluePeter BluePeter BluePeter. Your argument is so simplistic, I am sure you yourself don’t even believe it! So I shall not bait.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:24 am
Ah Meghan, Meghan, Meghan - I know evasion when I see it.
Eventually, Greens will have to face the population question. Won’t that be fun, given that it’s on a collision course with far-left social policy.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:33 am
Oh, it’s not evasion in the least. I know when and how to spend my time. Having just spent the last 20 minutes on my hands and knees scrubbing the kitchen floor, now sitting next to my son helping him to eat his lunch, next needing to get the washing out before I go off work for the afternoon - I can think of better things to do with my time that debate such a ridiculous assertion as yours.
The population question is far more fair an issue to talk about. But for that, I am afraid my personal views might not please many.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:43 am
>>such a ridiculous assertion as yours
We don’t have a “scarcity of humans” issue. We have a “far too many humans” issue.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:46 am
I’m not convinced by Turnip28’s argument about wage detremination in the low-skilled sector, vis:
“The free market has set a price for that labour. The free market has also set a price for the Fruit pickers labour. The farmer needs to pay people to pick his fruit he sets a wage if someone is willing to work at that job for that wage then the farmer will get a worker. Where in NZ are their fruit trees with rotting fruit on them because nobody would work to pick the fruit?”
What then is the role of added value? Surely the wage to the worker is capped by the value s/he adds to the produce by picking it (in this instance) and hence by the price the farmer can sell it for? The farmer may well have surplus produce but be unable to attract enough workers at the wage rate he can afford to pay. This does not mean he will increase in the wage offered in theoretical supply/demand economics fashion - he will only do that if he can still make a profit on employing the “marginal” worker.
Doesn’t this point to a strong element of “cost-plus” (or “sale-price-minus”) wage determination rather then the theoretical purity of the “free market”" that you describe?
Lots of apple growers in the Hawkes bay have left fruit on their trees in past years due to inability to attract sufficient labour at the wage rates they can afford to offer - which often don’t attract sufficient numbers of people willing to work for those pay rates.
Cue immigrant workers as the solution.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:53 am
BluePeter Says:
October 1st, 2008 at 11:24 am
> Eventually, Greens will have to face the population question.
I think what it boils down to is that our current slightly-below-replacement birthrate is about right. An above-replacement birthrate would mean continuing population growth and running out of resources, a birthrate that’s much below replacement rate is a problem in that it would lead to a society that is numerically far too dominated by old people.
I think it is unfortunate, however, that the birthrate is so much lower among highly educated people than among less educated people. It would be nice to find some gentle way of evening that up.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:55 am
> What then is the role of added value? Surely the wage to the worker is capped by the value s/he adds to the produce by picking it
You’d think the value added by picking the fruit would be quite high, in that the fruit can’t really be sold at all if nobody picks it. But the market doesn’t seem to be assigning a very high value to it.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:39 pm
“I think it is unfortunate, however, that the birthrate is so much lower among highly educated people than among less educated people. It would be nice to find some gentle way of evening that up.”
I’d say education would be the best way to achieve that, including educating people as to their responsibility to NOT have swags of kids.
The Greens should be at the forefront of this, instead they appear to be championing the right of those that can’t afford to breed to be paid to breed. One kid per adult please.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
The flaw in turnip’s argument is that the global free market has also set a price for fruit based on production costs. It just so happens that global transport costs are cheap compared with first world wages so the price of fruit is still determined by wages in the the third world. Therefore NZ fruitgrowers have to pay as close to third world wages as possible in order to sell their fruit at the price consumers expect to pay.
Their are two solutions to the conundrum.
Encourage people to pay more for NZ local produce and ban global free trade if they won’t do it voluntarily.
Or force third world fruit growers to pay first world wages, thereby removing their competitive edge, driving them out of business and making their workers unemployed. At least then they won’t be working for just $1 a day!
October 1st, 2008 at 1:35 pm
“What rubbish Sam all you are showing us is that you are opposed to capitalism.”
I thought I’d made that pretty clear.
“How exactly does your communism achieve a better result at distributing resources. ”
Well, I’m an anarchist-communist, not a ‘communist’ in the popular sense of the world, i.e. a believer in state control. I’d allocate on the basis of need.
“Capitalism is the best method for efficiently distributing resources thoughout society.”
I don’t see that letting somebody have seven houses with seven swimming pools and eleven cars is an efficient allocation of resources.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
kahikatea,
> Eventually, Greens will have to face the population question.
A few comments …
A lowering birthrate (and thus fewer income earners and caregivers) would impact only on one or two generations of “oldies” and could be planned for.
As far as that care is concerned, the possibilities of optimum diet and better health care will potentially reduce the need for significant amounts of help for this group, even though they are living longer.
As far as the intelligent women breeding less …
Intelligence levels “tend towards the norm” anyway.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:57 pm
>>our current slightly-below-replacement birthrate is about right.
Perhaps. But when immigration is taken into account we have a continuing increase in overall population. Clearly to attain replacement level, we either have to lower immigration or further decrease our birthrate or, of course, achieve an appropriate combination of both. Coupled with this should be planning for a more or less constant population basis. (That is, no significant growth).
This can be construed as a nil-growth market and, when coupled with a strong move away from ‘planned obsolescence’ to ’sustainability’, there is a real danger of stagnation, not to mention the resultant unemployment in the productive sectors.
So the question is, are the Greens (or any other party) ever likely to overtly support nil population growth? Personally, I think they can, as I believe that a nil growth but dynamic market could be realised under some future eco-economic theory. It is, admittedly, a leap of faith at present: for not only is a comprehensive economic theory required but also it has to gain wide acceptance. And time is running out……
October 1st, 2008 at 2:51 pm
If fruit is rotting on trees in the hawkes bay then thats the free market, all labour competes on a global scale, a lot of NZ’rs never adopted to NZ getting rid of Mercantilism, these people never adapted to NZ moving into a global market. In a global market the low skill labour needs to compete with workers around the world, in NZ we have artificial wages created by unions and minimum wages. This adds a much higher cost to producing goods in NZ so the companies move overseas.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:54 pm
To argue then that we should place trade barriers and impose restrictions on foreign trade or waste money on a buy NZ made campaign only hurts the citizen’s of NZ who must pay higher prices for goods and subsidize those members of society who are working in those industries.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:03 pm
If fruit is rotting on the trees in the Hawkes bay then the 11,000+ lazy sods who claim the dole should me forced to pick it.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Agreed Big Bro.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Sam,
it appears your mind has not progressed significantly far to recognize that the ability of workers to demand pay rates is a factor of supply and demand and it appears also that you are totally unfamilar with the concept of a ’supply curve’ and a ‘demand curve’.
Also, working on the assumption that my postulate it true, why would it automatically follow that fruit pickers, nurses, and the like would, under the current system of demand and supply, get higher wages? Are you not aware that fruit picking is a job with massive fluidity and extremly low skill demand and as such the potential supply of labour is almost the size of the entire population given the right pay rate. With such massive supply, even at low pay rates there will be sufficent supply of demand.
Furthermore, since you appear to have no comprehension of even the most basic of economics; the maximal price a employer is willing to pay for a service provided is reliant on the perceived marginal benefit; if the worker demands a wage that is higher than the benefit to the employer of that extra unit of work then the employer will not hire the worker.
Kiwinuke,
Correct, the maximal wage paid to a worker will not exceed the value that is added to the product through their service. The properties of the value-added industries depends on the specific product; if we take apples for example (because processed foods have so many more steps); the apple is produced and harvested by the farmer and workers there of, the workers a paided a maximum of the profit that farmer is able to extract from those apples, those apples may be sold at a market at that price level if the farmer chooses to add on the cost of transportation to venue and cost incured in manning a stall, otherwise the apples may be sold to a company such as foodstuffs distribution; the product is now made more valuable as its market is increased widly without a corresponding increase in supply as it is now accessable to any foodstuffs catered store (new world, pak n save, four square, etc) and the maximum increase in value is what is the maximal rate for the workers. The product is then onsold (at a massivly inflated price) to the supermarkets themselves which brings the product to a wider audience once again and further increases the value as supply stays the same but demand vastly increases and this increase is the maximal amount that will be paid to store workers. For ease of writing I have left out the marginal benefit of each additional unit of produce and work, both of which serve to further lower the maximum rate.
Kahikatea,
lol, we could always gently push the old people towards euthenasia, make it a social expectation; after all, once one has breed children the most useful thing they can do is to turn to dust.
As for the disproportionality of breeding rates; indeed, that sucks, it is the makings of our very own idiocracy and yet a ethical way to make the change illuded me, that is short of seperating child from poverty stricken or stupid parents and bringing them up seperatly whilst making the parents pay the full cost and funding smart people to breed, lol. Eugenics, gotta love it!
Also, for the value-added comment, dont take them individually, prices are set by the value added, the supply and demand, and the marginal costs and benefits of each additional unit.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Hi bb, what took you so long to bite?
Mostly it gets left on the trees (or the trees ripped up) because there is no unfetterred access to other markets for the apples (especially Australia).
One of the outcomes of the free marklet is that if people make decisions to invest in producing things that it later turns out there isn’t a market for then the investor/producer faces a loss.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:54 pm
But Sapient, who shall we put on the Eugenics/ youth-in-asia selection panel? Randy what’s-his-face, Paula Abdul & Simon Cowell perhaps?
October 1st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
samiam,
that was a sarcastic ‘gotta love it’, lol.
that was a terrible series, but randy was a jackson wasint he?
But that aside, i wouldint trust people to make such decisions, wouldint even trust myself.
for euthenasia i would make it very much up to the individual, as it should be, i would just try to bring about a small change in social values, lol.
for eugenics, i would offer a higher rate for unemployment/dpb benifits for women on the temporary infertility injection and attempt to find other ways to ensure equality of opportunity for children without rewarding the parents; prehaps kibbutz style child rearing and require the parents to pay for the majority of the costs through loans, lol. who knows?