by Denise Roche
The day before the government’s budget the Service and Food Workers Union (SFWU) was joined by around sixty other community and faith-based organisations to launch the Campaign for a Living Wage.
It’s a timely campaign – especially since the budget announcements mean a harder time for low and middle income families.
The SFWU – and the other organisations like the Salvation Army and budgeting services are on the coal face working with those who are impacted most severely.
They’re the ones trying to negotiate higher wages, or offering food parcels. The budget does nothing to raise families and children out of poverty and there are around 220,000 kids living in poverty in New Zealand today. And out of those two out of every five kids is from a family where at least one of the parents is working.
The Living Wage campaign is an attempt to address workers low incomes and deliver a decent standard of living that allows them to earn a living and be able to fully participate in society. The minimum wage doesn’t do that.
Working for 40 hours a week on the minimum wage of $13.50 per hour brings in $540 per week before tax. Most workers earning this – and we’re talking about a hundred thousand – have their wages subsidized by the government with Working For Families (so the government is allowing employers who pay low wages to keep them low.)
But even then thousands of families are struggling to cover the basics like housing, food, electricity, transport and school costs. Many are working several low paid jobs – some more than 70 hours a week – to make ends meet.
The difference between the minimum wage and a Living Wage is that one is scraping by under stress, just getting by – while the other is about getting by with dignity – with the ability to care for our kids and contribute to our communities.
The Government – and local councils too – will be called upon to pay a living wage. Not just to those directly employed, but for those who are contracted to provide services as well. Cleaners, security guards, roading contractors, caregivers – the list goes on…
Lifting pay rates for New Zealand’s lowest paid workers will reduce inequality and poverty. And we need to do that or face the fact that we are condemning New Zealand to becoming a society of the haves and have-nots.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by Denise Roche on Fri, May 25th, 2012
Tags: living wage, Minimum wage, SFWU, Zero budget
More posts by Denise Roche | more about Denise Roche
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Higher wages (and more jobs) will come from one thing – businesses being MORE profitable than they are now.
As most businesses are making less than they were several years ago, unless things can be made easier for businesses, then there’ll never be much chance of wages going up by much, or many more jobs being created.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5 (+1)
Higher wages (and more jobs) will come from one thing – businesses being MORE profitable than they are now.
That is actually pure bullshit. I think you’ve taken to distilling the stuff to make it stronger.
“More profitable” businesses get that way by improving productivity. Selling more and making it for less… or just making something so good that everyone has GOT to have one “right now”.
Here of course, they simply cut staff, but I have never seen one voluntarily share profits with the FEWER employees they are using to make the stuff they are making.
We want more jobs and higher wages for the working people in this country and WE know we have to do something about the way the ENTIRE economy is structured to get there. You can spout off as you please, but you’re as wrong as Kodak managed to be about how to deal with the changes in the world.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
BJ says “Here of course, they simply cut staff, but I have never seen one voluntarily share profits with the FEWER employees they are using…”
Again – more ignorance. In years my company does well, I can afford to be more generous with wage increases, and in tight years I can’t.
Every business I know does that.
In fact when most businesses were doing very well a few years ago just before the bubble burst, companies were outbidding each other for skilled workers and wages went up significantly.
It’s unbeleivable that you don’t think that when companies are more profitable, they’re not more likely to take on more poeple and give wage rises than when they’re struggling – BJ – I don’t know what planet you live on – but it’s not this one.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
if you think you can get higher wages and more jobs from businesses who are barely scraping a profit now
Funny, I don’t remember discussing WHAT businesses might do WHAT work or under WHAT actual conditions. You are assuming a lot… and you ought to know better by now. I don’t use the existing economic system as anything but a negative example…
“It’s unbeleivable that you don’t think that when companies are more profitable, they’re not more likely to take on more poeple and give wage rises than when they’re struggling”
No, again something I didn’t say… nor believe. You probably needed to read more carefully or I needed to write more carefully… equal score there. I was discussing improving productivity by cutting staff, not more profitable circumstances overall…
My experience HAS been to expect the boss to do OK in bad times and really well in good times. To expect the worker to do really badly in the bad times and OK in the good times. That’s all. The worker is certainly MORE likely to benefit from a profitable company.
However, the conditions of profitability in the CURRENT economic environment appear to include screwing all the workers into the dirt, outsourcing supply to buy from cheaper overseas companies, raping the landscape, destroying the environment for the future and selling off anything that can imaginably be of use to anyone ever…. leaving our kids with nothing or less than that.
There are reasons for this, I use the current economic “system” as a negative example because of those reasons. You will NOT cure them by lowering taxes on businesses further, or by lowering wages here further, or by doing any of the thousand other meretricious and atrocious things that National has in mind.
I’d love to explain how to fix it to John Key in detail, watching his head explode would be SO entertaining. Who knows, maybe he’d run with it. I know how, but have no power. He has power but is clewless about what to do with it… apart from keeping it of course… and of all the bad things I think of him, I don’t think he’s stupid.
Nor you for that matter. But you still don’t understand the point I was trying to make.
We want more jobs and higher wages for the working people in this country and WE know we have to do something about the way the ENTIRE economy is structured to get there.
It isn’t about giving business a bigger club to beat the unions with… or vice versa.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6 (-1)
Suddenly a whole plethora of posts from him repeating the same economics and eugenics bullshit and spin.
1. Macro-economics for management 101. One firm cutting wages increases their profits. Every firm cutting wages decreases profits.
Wage earners are also customers!
2. If he is seriously concerned about beneficiary mums breeding more children for money. (Not that there can be that many given the total number of teenage mums on the DPB) Why does he not advocate the proven answer.
Give them enough to live on with one child!
The logical conclusion to his concerns.
Worldwide evidence shows that the best method of cutting birth numbers, is to increase the living standards, education and equality of women.
Colin Craig, Don Brash, John Banks etc all prove that having wealth still does not mean there is much between the ears.
Maybe we should re-consider giving the wealthy the right to breed, Given their future likely use of non-sustainable resources and their inbred physical and intellectual inferiority.
Even the British aristocracy need frequent injections of commoner brain power to prevent idiocy within a generation.
The other logical answer to his concerns is to ensure every child has a chance. That none live in poverty.
3. We, have been living within our means.
Value of exports exceeds the value of imports.
The gap is because of profits and interest going offshore. Made much worse since the asset sales disasters.
Our overpaid managerial and finance sectors have not been living within their earnings.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4 (+3)
How many days since the last general thread?
Caught Kim Hill interview with this guy yesterday. Finally an economist who actually understands stuff.
Kim’s podcast is
here
What he says backs up almost everything we’ve been talking about with respect to the economic reality we face. It basically flies in the face of everything the government we have is doing to us in the name of the banks too.
Boy are we skruud
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
So the Greens want the poor (Like me, technically my kids are in poverty) to have more “stuff” extracted out of the oil fueled economy.
Trips to the Gold Coast, latest playstation, body kit for the car, you know, all that stuff that means you’ve really made it as a well rounded consumption driven modern family.
Greens, your message is confused, inconsistent, and often so illogical as to make one wonder whether any thought goes into your policy at all.
Sustainability, think about it, think about what you are really advocating for here.
Socialism never did care much for the environment, and neither will the watermelon policy making being displayed here.
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
Ugh… Shunda… WTF are you on about? The money comes out of the economy we create (and the economy is only fossil fueled in part), and that economy has to change and we’ve outlined how to do that and how to work to making it sustainable…
You are basically giving us grief for having more than one idea at a time and that HAS been something you’ve done in the past IIRC. The notions are not however, contradictory. Changing the economy to get us to higher wages is not the same as taking money for higher wages out of the current mistake that National so optimistically calls an economy.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
What am I on about?
It’s called the hybrid socialist/environmentalist agenda and the absurd logic required to make it work.
It is about an environmentalist party that is thoroughly confused about values and just as inconsistent with values claimed to be held dear.
I have some questions.
What will a “living wage” be based on? at what point does one determine “living” compared to surviving?
Obviously you are talking about leisure time, possessions, playing consumer.
So define the ideal life in this country? when are we really living and how do you define it?
Denise says 220 000 kids are in poverty, I want to know by what measure.
These policies are absolutely ridiculous for a party that concerns itself with the environment, the level of consumption is the bloody problem and here you are advocating bring a whole new class of consumption!!
All this ill conceived policy will do is grow the “unsustainable pie” AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
This is straight out of the tired old socialists handbook and it is just garbage.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5 (+1)
“What will a “living wage” be based on?”
wiki says ‘living wage activists further define “living wage” as the wage equivalent to the poverty line for a family of four’
When does “living” become “surviving”? That is an interesting question.
“It’s called the hybrid socialist/environmentalist agenda and the absurd logic required to make it work.”
Bring on the absurd logic!
BTW Shunda, I thought of you when I heared about this study
http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/14/1948550612447114.abstract
“After viewing a few organic foods, comfort foods, or control foods, participants who were exposed to organic foods volunteered significantly less time to help a needy stranger, and they judged moral transgressions significantly harsher than those who viewed nonorganic foods. These results suggest that exposure to organic foods may lead people to affirm their moral identities, which attenuates their desire to be altruistic.”
I thought you’d agree with that finding..
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
I thought you’d agree with that finding..
It’s interesting for sure.
I saw it in church all the time, if one feels they are the “leading light” on something they usually lack motivation to make any real difference, which leads to the “us and them” mentality.
The similarities between much of institutional Christianity and the left is uncanny to say the least.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Kerry says “If he is seriously concerned about beneficiary mums breeding more children for money. (Not that there can be that many given the total number of teenage mums on the DPB) ”
Half of all teenagers going on the on the DPB this year (last figures were 4760 teenage births, of which 80% go on a benefit) will STILL be there in a decades time in the year 2022.
So that’s nearly 2000 girls who will drain nearly 1/4 million dollars each in benefits ($500 million total) over the next ten years.
Next year we will have another 2000 girls who will drain $500 million. The year after another half billion. 2014, 2015 etc the same.
So while Kerry tries to convince people that there are only a small number of 18 and 19 year olds on the DPB, he tries to MISLEAD BY TOTALLY IGNORING all the 20,21,22,23,24, 25, 26, 27, 28 year olds, and those in their 30s and 40s – who first went on the DPB as a teenager, and have never got off it.
And Kerry want to encourage MORE teenager pregnancies by giving dishing out MORE taxpayers money as reward for making bad decisions.
My wife spent half of last week trying to convince high school girls that living on just under $400 a week is really hard, when they refuse to beleive that isn’t a fortune and see getting pregnant as a great option.
Kerry – you stick your head in the sand so you can’t see a problem, and then can’t see that throwing MORE money at it will increase numbers – not decrease them. When the DBP was first brought in, numbers went up 1000% in the first decade.
And we haven’t even discussed the downstream costs to society like the kids of these teenage mums will dominate all our worst statistics. They are hundreds of percent more likely to
- end up in jail,
- with drug problems,
- be suicidal,
- have psychiatric problems,
- drink problems,
-be uneducated (250% more than average),
- be teenage parents themselves (250% more than average),
-be long term unemployed (200% more than average),
-and be violent (300% more than average) etc etc etc.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
The naysayers opinions won’t make any difference because governments the world over view human beings as economic units of production. Sick but true.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
So the criticism of a Green party having any focus on alleviating poverty (being red) has evolved into an assertion that any alleviation of poverty is not good for the environment (not green).
Thus paradoxically the argument is made that continuing poverty amongst the underclass (and the third world) is good for the environment … .
The only thing is, Greens do propose ideas that make the economy and society more sustainable in ways that also reduce poverty – like insulating houses, and providing food in poor area schools to get better education and health outcomes.
And better pay for (low paid) workers does not increase the size of the economy it only redistributes allocations, it’s impact on the environment is nuetral.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
A successful living wage – rising minimum wage + WFF makes work more attractive relative to benefits, so those who have a problem with the “attractiveness” of welfare should be offering their support.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks. Photo. For just proving my point. The problems you enumerate are the problems caused by keeping people in poverty. Not being teenage Mums.
You have also shown how little is spent on young Mums, and our future generations, compared to the last tax cuts.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Kerry – your solution doesn’t even acknowledge the problem let alone address it – you’ll never fix the problem in a thousand years with your “solution”.
Instead of stopping problems in the first place, you just want to throw taxpayers money off the cliff and hope that some of it will make a little bit of difference to the damage at the bottom.
But of course money doesn’t stop people making bad decisions in the first place.
Often it encourages even more to make bad decisions.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Photo. You, are ignoring the problem. The “problem” you are concerned about is caused by poverty and low expectations, fueled by lack of opportunities under our present mean spirited and skewed society.
Fix those and “your” problem will disappear.
How about a guaranteed minimum income, Photo? No need to “breed” at all for an income then.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
So the criticism of a Green party having any focus on alleviating poverty (being red) has evolved into an assertion that any alleviation of poverty is not good for the environment (not green).
The policy is not based on sustainability – period.
It is simply going to grow the pie, or do you really think the wealthy will just accept it is time to give up their creature comforts so the average family can have a trip to the Gold coast twice a year?
Thus paradoxically the argument is made that continuing poverty amongst the underclass (and the third world) is good for the environment
What you call “poverty” in NZ has NOTHING to do with poverty in the third world, you are talking nonsense.
… .
The only thing is, Greens do propose ideas that make the economy and society more sustainable in ways that also reduce poverty – like insulating houses,
Yep, the insulation was a rare foray into true sustainable management, sadly, the key word here is “rare”.
and providing food in poor area schools to get better education and health outcomes.
Which is a completely unsustainable policy. Those kids aren’t going hungry because their parents have no money for food, they are going hungry because their parents don’t care a stuff. Enabling this to continue is not sustainable and will cause greater problems for society than you claim it is solving.
And better pay for (low paid) workers does not increase the size of the economy it only redistributes allocations, it’s impact on the environment is nuetral.
Redistributes it for what?
Oh that’s right, for the “poor” to consume more!!.
You really aren’t thinking this through are you.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
The “problem” you are concerned about is caused by poverty and low expectations, fueled by lack of opportunities under our present mean spirited and skewed society.
What utter bullshit.
The problem is caused by a loss of values, rampant consumerism and the desire for “things”.
Take a look at the crap people concern themselves with for entertainment and leisure time, none of it has anything to do with enjying the paradise we live in and a lot to to with tacky shallow values and selfish motives.
NZ is absolutely full of opportunity for anyone that can be bothered getting off their backside and finding it.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Kerry – you solution to the second highest teenage pregnancy rate in the OECD is give them more money if they get pregnant – yeah right – that will work.
Unbeleivable.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
The concept of a Living Wage might not seem so attractive when the working class in China, Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia etc… start demanding it as well.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Shunda barunda
You don’t get what redistribution means do you? Redistribution does not increase overall consumption.
An increase in the wages of the low paid is a redistribution to them and it comes from those who pay for this – loss of profit to business or higher costs they pass on. Others will consume less, if they can consume more.
And regardless of the utility of the term poverty as applies here or in the Third World, alleviating poverty by redistribution results in more consumption by some and less by others.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
You don’t get what redistribution means do you? Redistribution does not increase overall consumption.
Yes it does! what do you think they are going to spend their extra money on SPC?
Jeepers creepers, I though you guys understood a feedback loop, perhaps only when it suits??
An increase in the wages of the low paid is a redistribution to them and it comes from those who pay for this – loss of profit to business or higher costs they pass on.
Yes in theory, but never in reality. In reality this will simply heat up the economy, increase consumption, profits and speed up resource exploitation IT IS THE STORY OF THE WESTERN WORLD, that the Greens so poorly understand this reality is appalling for an environmentalist party.
Others will consume less, if they can consume more.
No they won’t and no they don’t, this has never ever happened in history because it is a fundamentally flawed argument and idealistic in the extreme.
And regardless of the utility of the term poverty as applies here or in the Third World, alleviating poverty by redistribution results in more consumption by some and less by others.
No it doesn’t, it simply increases overall consumption at the expense of ever increasing resource exploitation. This is exactly why the “poor” in this country are completely different to the poor in a third world country.
It is staring you in the face, how can you even argue that fact?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Thus shunda’s arguement, against the Green Party being associated with the liberals or left he dislikes so much, is now rationalised into some apologetic where help to the poor is bad for the environment because help to the poor creates economic growth.
If you were right then you would have dismissed neo-liberal economics of the right and declared the socialists to have the better economic policy for growth and prosperity.
So the new double play tactic by trolls on the site is that
1. help to the poor only encourages people on welfare to breed more children (repeated ad nauseum in every second thread)
2. help to the poor increases economic growth and this is bad for the environment.
Both arguing keeping the poor poor is good policy.
However in the real world some having mroe and others having less – does not mean there is more consumption, just that some consume more and some consume less. Redistribution is nuetral, the left and right both insist otherwise but that is just the spin of partisan left and right politics. Redistribution is simply the means to build a more sustainable society, where there is equality of opportunity for every child.
Of course what is really in the way of help to the poor is the indoctrination into the belief that people are undeserving and that their children should suffer for the poor choices of their parents. Given the profile of those in poverty based on profile – non Pakeha and women raising up children before marriage or after divorce this becomes more understandable. A lot of this attitude comes from the USA and the celebration of wealth of some as a properity blessing from God implying that the poor are in essense the undeserving of society who need to behave proper before being helped by their betters.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Michael, people there already command a subsistance wage – no labour can be paid less. As for a living wage that is their aspiration too.
For example the wages in China are now increasing rapidly as they now have higher levels of labour use in their modernised production (legacy of the one child policy) and shortages are emerging. This means more jobs will come to other countries in the region.
Given their living wage will still be lower than here, because of our higher land/housing cost etc, their labour production costs will still mean cheap goods for us – especially as jobs will continue to transfer to the cheaper production centres.
So what’s the problem for us with them seeking a living wage?
An increased price to consumption goods, whether by higher labour prices or higher resource use cost is inevitable (and the former will raise their living standard, improve their education). Rising living standards are linked to lower population growth.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Thus shunda’s arguement, against the Green Party being associated with the liberals or left he dislikes so much, is now rationalised into some apologetic where help to the poor is bad for the environment because help to the poor creates economic growth.
By your measure I am poor, my kids are in poverty. I only know it because you and your friends here keep telling me I am. In reality I feel rich, but I don’t have sky tv, a v8 holden, a big screen tv, don’t want to even go to the Gold Coast, don’t smoke, no house on a hill.
But what I do have is a set of values that bring me and my family a great deal of “richness”. Tents are cheap, fishing rods are cheap, holiday homes at Hanmer springs are cheap, we got an awesome sailing dingy and trailer for 800 bucks, we can climb mountains, catch a trout, and go surfing in the same day, we can enjoy beaches, bush, rivers, and lakes as part of our birth right.
I feel rich, you say I’m poor.
If you were right then you would have dismissed neo-liberal economics of the right and declared the socialists to have the better economic policy for growth and prosperity.
Ha!, I challenge you to find where I have ever indicated I have anything other than deep seated contempt for “neo-liberal” economics.
But seeing the folly in one stupid system doesn’t mean I agree with an even stupider system stained by the blood of millions.
So the new double play tactic by trolls on the site is that
1. help to the poor only encourages people on welfare to breed more children (repeated ad nauseum in every second thread)
2. help to the poor increases economic growth and this is bad for the environment.
Both arguing keeping the poor poor is good policy.
Economic growth is bad for the environment, are you f@cking serious??
However in the real world some having mroe and others having less – does not mean there is more consumption, just that some consume more and some consume less.
Your naivety and faith in the human race is very cute.
Redistribution is nuetral, the left and right both insist otherwise but that is just the spin of partisan left and right politics. Redistribution is simply the means to build a more sustainable society, where there is equality of opportunity for every child.
Tell that to the kid that walks out his back door and see’s nothing but desert.
Inequality is a fact of life on this planet, redistribution is a vain attempt at achieving the impossible, human wants are not human rights.
Of course what is really in the way of help to the poor is the indoctrination into the belief that people are undeserving and that their children should suffer for the poor choices of their parents. Given the profile of those in poverty based on profile – non Pakeha and women raising up children before marriage or after divorce this becomes more understandable.
Oh so now you are playing the race card, undeniable evidence that I have stuck a raw nerve and really on to something here.
A lot of this attitude comes from the USA and the celebration of wealth of some as a properity blessing from God implying that the poor are in essense the undeserving of society who need to behave proper before being helped by their betters.
Oh dear, those irrational fundamentalist fears are manifesting again.
I challenge you to find where Jesus says anything about oppressing the poor being a good thing.
Here’s how my wife and I help the poor (whilst being poor myself), we get involved in kids sports, take the beneficiary kids down the road fishing, take them to the lake with us, give them a break from their abusive parents.
But what you are suggesting is that I should buy them “stuff” instead, redistribute “stuff” enable them to get more “stuff” and value “things” instead of life it self.
I am glad I am poor, it makes me feel very rich and free from all the consumer crap that the Greens clearly think is oh so desirable.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
So what’s the problem for us with them seeking a living wage?
Umm, because the whole thing is fueled by the unsustainable use of fossil fuels perhaps??
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Shunda, resource depletion and environment protection is not an excuse to sustain poverty or to advocate this. Reducing poverty can come with a transfer of consumption of wants by the haves to consumption of needs by the have nots with no net resource depletion or impact on the environment.
And stop confusing the poverty of those in poor urban areas who can barely afford to heat their homes, or feed and clothe their children because of high rent, power and food costs, with having a lifestyle in the lower population provincial areas close to the environment. People are supposed to be close to where the jobs are and would lose their low wage job and or benefit if they moved.
Many of those poor cannot afford a car and use public transport sparingly and hardly ever see the beach – most now lack a pool at their school and the mayor of Auckland is fighting to keep public pools open free to children so they can learn to swim and do this at least. Free pools to these children of poor people means either more crowded pools or higher rates to others – leaving them to consume less goods.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
People in China will get higher wages. While they are not getting higher wages – a living wage, they are being screwed over by those making the money producing the goods. Currently these people are either the government investing in public infrastructure, the military, and new green tech or those profiting personally and investing a lot into urban property developments.
Paying the workers more money results in them paying more for property (bidding up the price) or owning more of the goods they produce (rather than exporting them all to us). We would buy less as the value of the goods we buy goes up (as their wages do).
As for the unsustainability of resource depletion, there lies then the equilibrium of sustainable productive level (renewables and new tech) and the question of the market gap – the period of transition between resource unavailability and the last phase of depletion with scarcity driving up price.
During this transition and afterwards in the new renewable equilibrium government will have to allocate increasing transfers to the poor to ensure that they can afford their needs. This will reduce the amount remaining with the others for their consumer wants.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Economic growth is bad for the environment, are you f@cking serious??
In this economic system, with no meaningful cost attached to CO2 production, you bet your ass we’re serious.
Moreover, there are aspects of sustainability that aren’t addressed by your simplistic attack.
The business with the fossil fuels being unsustainable isn’t addressed by our discussions of unsustainable economics and unsustainable social programs. There is a LOT wrong with this country Shunda, most of which we know how to fix better than any other party.
I think you’re right in one thing though. Redistribution WILL create more consumption. Money will get some velocity and there will be more spending by the poor who get it than by the wealthy who don’t have to.
To accommodate that we need to build the dams, the wind farms, the geothermal and the tidal power and the biomass to make up for the fossils we can’t possibly afford to use.
To do THAT we need to put teeth in the cost of CO2. Sweden did it well. Everyone else said $20. They said $150 and they cut their CO2 emissions and got biomass and other generation coming on line… and that moves the economic growth closer to zero for all that the redistribution pushes it up. Their top tax is 57% IIRC.
Two problems, poverty and the environment. National has no plan for either.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Do you really think Shunda, that the majority are going to support sustainable policies when it means the top 2% still get richer by 20% a year while the rest of us have to get poorer by 20% a year to compensate.
We are a democracy, aren’t we. LOL.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
The poor spend mostly on food, housing, health and clothing. All of which can be accommodated easily for New Zealanders within our present local capabilities.
It is us “rich” who have the energy guzzling SUV’s and power boats, the oversea flying holidays and the extra bach at the beach.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
You guys completely misunderstand my point out of some bizarre commitment to the idea that I some how, for some reason hate the poor.
You don’t get what I am saying, and you seem very confused about human nature and what real poverty actually is.
Money does not equal wealth, think about it.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
In this economic system, with no meaningful cost attached to CO2 production, you bet your ass we’re serious.
Serious about what? sharing more of the fossil fueled economy with more people?
What are you really about? sustainable societies or “fitting in”.
All the Greens are advocating for here is heating up a system already white hot with the consumption of limited resources!
This policy is detached from reality and firmly attached to boring old socialism!
Once again, are you serious?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
All the Greens are advocating for here is heating up a system already white hot with the consumption of limited resources!
@ Shunda
Reading through the thread here I’m struggling to understand the point you are trying to make.
Are you saying that;
(i) entrenching the idea of living wage (in NZ being a synonym for revised minimum wage of $15/hr) is undesirable and/or
(ii) redistribution either via taxation (WFF etc.) or directly via minimum wage regulation is undesirable and will lead to unsustainable consumption.
A clarification would be appreciated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Are you saying that;
(i) entrenching the idea of living wage (in NZ being a synonym for revised minimum wage of $15/hr) is undesirable
You haven’t defined living, the Greens haven’t defined living, please tell me what it means to really be “living” and how you determine how much that costs.
and/or
(ii) redistribution either via taxation (WFF etc.) or directly via minimum wage regulation is undesirable and will lead to unsustainable consumption.
It won’t lead to unsustainable consumption because that already exists now, the Greens bright idea is to spread that pie around as their answer to (ill defined) poverty.
Socialist policy at the expense of (and completely ignoring) the environment.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Serious about what? sharing more of the fossil fueled economy with more people?
What are you really about? sustainable societies or “fitting in”.
Shunda STOP changing the subject please? Your original question was –
Economic growth is bad for the environment, are you f@cking serious??
And it is and we are… in this environment.
Now you are switching over to acknowledging that economic growth IS bad for this environment.
You have YET to acknowledge that Greens address the economy, the ecology AND the society. We don’t look at just one thing. Which leads you into the lot of malarkey that you’ve just been posting. Are YOU serious? If you are then consider please, that better educated and supported people have FEWER children.
Large families are a sign of third world insecurities, which are of a certainty, growing in some sectors of the NZ society.
This government is screwing up by the numbers. WE know that changing the system is necessary. You simply are missing the complete picture. It is as though you ONLY see the one side of the party that is most obvious at the moment.
Our problem is that there is stuff-all we can do about the environment just now. The insulation thing is about all we have to work with. A real carbon tax? Have to BE in government to make that happen… and some of the other things we regard as necessary as well. We are in the position of reacting to what National does. That isn’t good but it is often what happens to the opposition in this system.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
BJ, what is the living wage going to be used for? food and rent or the ability to buy “things”?.
I am technically in poverty with my wife and kids, we get working for families, isn’t this already the “living wage” you are talking about? How is raising the minimum wage going to do anything but bring a very short boost quickly followed by inflation that wipes out the gain?
To me, it seems utterly pointless, the Greens would be better helping people to get by and enjoy life without needing more money to do it.
The home insulation policy is brilliant, but I don’t believe that is all the Greens could be doing at present.
I can’t see how dividing up an already seriously flawed economic model based on unsustainable resource exploitation is going to do anything but create more hunger for the same.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Shunda STOP changing the subject please? Your original question was –
Economic growth is bad for the environment, are you f@cking serious??
And it is and we are… in this environment.
Now you are switching over to acknowledging that economic growth IS bad for this environment.
BJ, you have misinterpreted that statement, but I can see how it reads and realize it created confusion on my position.
Economic growth is bad for the environment, and that is what I meant, I was astounded that people that claim to have environmental concerns could advocate for something that would fuel unsustainable economic growth, hence the, “are you serious” at the end.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Right… I answered that in a break at work and it was a quick response… so the alternative interpretation wasn’t going to get addressed.
So that’s settled then.
The problem Shunda, is that you are wrong about what we are advocating. We aren’t about just one thing.
However, Helping the poor get out of poverty (including through redistributing some of the wealth that free-market capitalism in combination with fractional-reserve banking has so sharply concentrated) can lead to a relatively increased velocity of money and some consumption increases.
We accept that. At the same time we advocate a high level of CO2 tax. This causes a variety of economic effects, including but not limited to, consumption decreases.
At the same time we advocate changes to and limits on the banking system. These further restrict growth.
Basically Shunda, you are looking at the part of the party you do not seem to like and not seeing the other parts. I’m not BIG on the social-justice aspects of it, but social justice is part of a sustainable society…. unless you really like revolutions and the resulting fiscal instability?
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
So BJ, you accept that my argument is valid.
I can see no precedent in human history where hunger doesn’t lead to more consumption, you are saying it will be temporary, I am saying that is extreme wishful thinking.
You can’t bring in a whole new class of consumer in the current system without creating uncontrollable demand for more resources!! it just won’t happen any other way.
The values are wrong, it is as simple as that and redistributing this unsustainable “pie” will only result in a hunger for more pie!!
You can’t make the devil an ally my friend.
The Greens have to find another way to be consistent with sustainable economics, this just won’t work and is simply tired old socialism.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Shunda – “in the current system” makes your argument unclear. Do you mean that new consumers, operating in the same way as the present ones do, entering into the system as it now stands (un-modifyied by Green policies), would create uncontrollable demands for resources? If so, you’re arguing with yourself, as this is not what the Greens propose. I’m thinking there’s a curious similarity here to what Fonterra says about dairying – there can be more cows and greater production, without increased negative environmental effects, if we work smarter, implement better systems, produce fewer effects on the environment and do so by enabling and incentivise those in the industry to improve practices on an ongoing basis. The Greens are proposing that their policies of sustainability will allow for growth and an equitable distribution of wealth to include those who presently have too little.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
I can see no precedent in human history where hunger doesn’t lead to more consumption
Well SATISFYING a hunger would of necessity lead to more consumption of food… for the hungry person.
However, I reject absolutely and without hesitation, the notion that the social justice in which the poor are granted the ability to live, and grow and move out of poverty is too ENVIRONMENTALLY expensive for our nation.
I reject that notion with respect to money, until the obscene disparity of wealth has been reduced to something in reason, and I reject it with respect to resources, until the distribution of their use is also much more equal.
It may be impossible for the world as a whole – the populations of too many countries have grown too large for a simple statement of an absolute and inflexible moral requirement for equality to stand for the planet as a whole. For New Zealand however, and this is the Green Party of Aotearoa NEW ZEALAND, there is no such excuse.
However, your notion that these values are wrong is wrong.
The ethics of helping the poor are no different from the ethics of helping our children by preventing climate change… and the requirement that we first attempt to do that and actually try to alter OUR consumption habits, which we have not yet done, before we give up and tell the poor “you can’t have anything because the environment can’t stand it”… is quite inflexible in my view. I could not go where YOU are trying to go and be at peace with myself.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
BJ, when I say “hunger” I am not talking about food, I am talking about things.
There is currently no excuse for anyone to go hungry in this country, therefore talk of “poverty” really means “ability to enjoy things”.
You (and others) are deliberately avoiding defining poverty for this reason, as we all know that relative poverty is infact not necessarily poverty at all.
By the way, I am not talking about inequality here, I just have the sense to separate the two.
Make a choice Greens, is it the environment or is it socialist welfare redistribution? there is no other option.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Greenfly, the similarity is more in line with statements several green MP’s have made recently regarding energy conservation. For example, I agree with Kevin Hague that we should make every effort to look for efficiencies before we look for more generation, or ‘throwing money’ at the situation.
Likewise for inequality, throwing money at the situation will not help one iota.
We can’t idealize the “poor” by assuming that they always make the right choices, in reality, there are many reasons people are poor and more often than not (in NZ) it is due to collective ‘poor’ values than a lack of money.
The solution therefore should be more ‘values’ based than money based.
One solution is a relatively easy adherence to socialist ideology (wealth redistribution), the other is harder and requires thinking outside the box.
Only one solution is consistent with a truly sustainable society.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
There is currently no excuse for anyone to go hungry in this country, therefore talk of “poverty” really means “ability to enjoy things”.
Ah… so you have set up a strawman in which Green efforts to reduce the number of people, particularly children, in this country who DO go hungry are somehow the same, in your mind, as Green efforts to reduce the GINI.
Two different things… related but NOT the same… and Shunda, I can use “food” metaphorically too.
Then you claim to separate the two yourself, but deny that we do so? You really have very little understanding. THIS particular discussion (*from the OP*) is about altering the GINI. However, wealth redistribution has nothing to do with “socialism” in an economy that is dominated by the two great unequalizers, fractional-reserve banking and free-market capitalism. The funny money that results will automatically concentrate wealth until a revolution occurs, unless a powerful progressive tax and redistribution system is in place.
This is rejected as “socialist” by those who have bought into the neo-libertarian meme. My contempt for them is palpable.
So let us be very clear here, because so far you have muddied the waters and been quite UNclear. Only with this latest post have you made the distinction we make… in order to claim we do not make one.
Now… that redefinition of the premise was needed to make it clear, but it changes nothing. You are stating that “We cannot “afford” to address the GINI because it would cost the environment too much in the current system“.
What possesses you to think that we want to retain “the current system”? I pointed out the advantages of a LARGE CO2 tax and return system, and you completely ignored that. I pointed out the error of the banking and monetary system and you completely ignored that. You focus ONLY on the one thing… the “socialist wealth redistribution” and you err greatly in so doing.
Make a choice Greens, is it the environment or is it socialist welfare redistribution?
A false dichotomy Shunda. There is no such choice required. We are not only permitted we are morally obligated, to work towards both.
EXPLAIN why we cannot work towards, and attempt to obtain, both?
There is nothing wrong with a bit of socialism in this country or any other… not-enough is as bad as too much. I can use the same words to describe “free market capitalism” by the way. The ideal appears to be a combination of both. You use socialism like it was a dirty word, but it is not, and social justice is not an idea to be so lightly discarded. This country needs to work hard to get its GINI down, it is too small a place and too tightly integrated for large wealth disparities to be tolerated long.
in reality, there are many reasons people are poor and more often than not (in NZ) it is due to collective ‘poor’ values
We finally get to the crux of your problem with us. Having nothing whatsoever to do with damage to the environment and everything to do with your perception of the poor as being undeserving of our assistance due to their “poor values”.
Well it is good to finally run this to the ground. I don’t think you quite “get” the changes that need to be made to society as-a-whole now, because the premise you are working from is already false.
It is not possible to simply “work hard and get ahead” – not for at least half the population. One has to be fortunate and one has to have above average abilities to get far off the minimum wage. This is a function of “improving productivity” which is the holy grail of the economic system we have embraced. The problems of automation and computerization have rendered half the population of MOST countries, pretty much redundant. They are not that smart, not likely to be well educated and they are permanently relegated to second class status in an environment of competitive capitalism.
Yet there is no possible way to lift them out of it through education and work… there is damned little pay in this country even for the well educated worker, it is reserved for the property owners, and Shunda, the GINI is 36 and rising. This is those two things, free-market capitalism and fractional-reserve banks, double teaming the country. This is why Greens have such a “hate” on for the big banks these days. It is why we perceive National as so completely pwned as to be unable to even twitch.
…and none of this has anything to do with the Environment. It has to do with a sustainable society. The Environment is not greatly affected by any of it here, and would be far better addressed with the CO2 tax as mentioned earlier, than by KEEPING PEOPLE POOR.
You really need to work out though, that there is no such dichotomy. No such choice to be made.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
FROG!!! ANOTHER GENERAL THREAD!!!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Ah… so you have set up a strawman in which Green efforts to reduce the number of people, particularly children, in this country who DO go hungry are somehow the same, in your mind, as Green efforts to reduce the GINI.
Your solution is exactly the same for both – give them more money, which is like solving the problem of a sieve leaking by adding more water.
This is rejected as “socialist” by those who have bought into the neo-libertarian meme. My contempt for them is palpable.
I haven’t bought into anything, I understand quite well the futility of the current system, but I also see the futility in the ‘other’ system as well.
A false dichotomy Shunda. There is no such choice required. We are not only permitted we are morally obligated, to work towards both.
EXPLAIN why we cannot work towards, and attempt to obtain, both?
You can, but the problem is you aren’t. The Greens solution is “money” and a misunderstanding of it’s real effectiveness in addressing these issues. Money in itself will do nothing to address poverty, but helping people to change their values so they can use money more efficiently will. Until the Greens understand this and stop idealizing the poor and the collective wrong values held by society, they won’t help a single soul.
We finally get to the crux of your problem with us. Having nothing whatsoever to do with damage to the environment and everything to do with your perception of the poor as being undeserving of our assistance due to their “poor values”.
Bullshit! I never said the poor were undeserving of “assistance” I said you have got the wrong idea in exactly how to “assist” them.
Giving people more money that haven’t got a clue how to manage “more money” is just cruel in my opinion. They don’t need more money, they need better values, they need to value their children and feed them before they do anything else. I live in a low socio economic area and I see it every single day, a lack of money is not the problem, a lack of values almost <always is.
I am not saying you are wrong to address the GINI index, but I am saying you are desperately wrong if you think money has the power to change lives and society, it doesn’t and it never bloody well has.
Well it is good to finally run this to the ground. I don’t think you quite “get” the changes that need to be made to society as-a-whole now, because the premise you are working from is already false.
I “get” it just fine BJ, because unlike most members of the Green party I am actually living amongst it. According to the GINI index, my family and I have been in poverty for 12 out of the last 13 years, yet somehow we manage to give our kids a decent life, why is that then BJ? because it isn’t down to having a lot of money, that is for damned sure.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Shunda… poverty is by definition, a lack of access to sufficient money, goods, services to sustain some basic standard of living. I STILL do not know what you are trying to do here. I’ve often hammered the notion that Greens policy should be support in kind rather than in cash. It isn’t a popular notion ANYWHERE, but it hasn’t been rejected absolutely here.
My problem with what you have been on about is the notion that we aren’t working to fix the environment because we believe in social justice. That’s the bullshit part. I don’t know where you got it from either… cause it doesn’t make sense.
The GINI index doesn’t set up a “poverty” line Shunda. Moreover, if you are someplace other than the big cities, the standard is different. You are making claims but I don’t believe that all of them are backed by reality.
Giving people more money that haven’t got a clue how to manage “more money” is just cruel in my opinion. They don’t need more money, they need better values, they need to value their children and feed them before they do anything else.
Yes.. the “poor don’t care about their children” meme. There is I think, in some places and communities some truth to that, but I do NOT think there is as much as you are believing. Some families do, some don’t. The ones who do not, make the news, the ones who do live lives of quiet desperation. Moreover, what YOU can do may well be beyond the ability of someone who is in 3rd generation poverty… or simply beyond the ability of most poor people because they are not as smart as you.
Nor is that descriptive of the working poor… a problem that has to do with the minimum wage and the failure to provide for a living wage in this country.
There IS a problem here Shunda, but it isn’t with the Green Party. You picked on us as being against the environment because we support social justice. Several mistakes in that.
I am not saying you are wrong to address the GINI index, but I am saying you are desperately wrong if you think money has the power to change lives and society, it doesn’t and it never bloody well has.
Really? That’s really quite unsupportable.
A. If monetary resources available to the individual are reduced below a minimum level in ANY society short of a pure communism, that individual is doomed. Tell me again how it doesn’t change lives?
B. “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes her laws.” – Mayer Amschel Rothschild – and one can argue strongly that the control of governments by the money industry has altered society significantly… HASN’T it. Probably not what you were thinking about, as the context was individual, but it still holds and it DOES ultimately affect the individual. That massive inequality of money leads to an imbalance of power in government, which is (among other reasons) how we are suffering with National even now.
I think that the problem we are struggling with here is that Money is not the ONLY thing involved. There are other influences on individuals and societies. This does not alleviate the need for social justice Shunda, it makes it MORE necessary, because the excuses offered for failings on those other things are usually compounded by the monetary problems.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)