via NSW election 2015: Policies come second for voters | The Australian.
The Labor Party on why the Greens do not win working class votes
24 May 2015 Leave a comment
in politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: animal rights, Australian Greens, do gooders, expressive voting, New South Wales election, New Zealand Greens, voter demographics, workers rights
What should be the Green Party case for free trade
23 May 2015 Leave a comment
in international economics, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, war and peace Tags: Left-wing hypocrisy, New Zealand Greens
Why is the gender wage gap so big in the public sector that the unions invoiced the government for it?
12 May 2015 1 Comment
in discrimination, gender, human capital, labour economics, politics - New Zealand, unions Tags: employer discrimination, gender wage gap, gender wage gap discrimination, government discrimination, New Zealand Greens, sex discrimination
The unions representing public servants and the Green Party are very excited about the gender wage gap this week. So much so that the public service union presented the Treasury with an invoice for that wage gap in the public sector of 14.1%.
Women in the public service are paid 14.1% less than men. We've invoiced @honbillenglish for the missing $294,827,136 http://t.co/QW5z4tU7bv—
(@NZPSA) May 11, 2015
Oddly enough, despite their concerns with the gender wage gap in the public service, the public service unions are stridently against both privatisation and contracting out.
It is almost trite to note is that one of the earliest analytical results in the labour economics of discrimination was that profit maximising employers are much less likely to discriminate than firms that are not subject to a profit and loss constraint and the discipline of bankruptcy.
A prejudiced employer pays a wage above the competitive wage to attract the particular recruits he or she is prejudiced in favour of and does not hire enough workers because he must pay higher wages. This results in lower output and profits than without discrimination.
@greencatherine Unadjusted NZ gender pay gap is 6%, the best in world. http://t.co/2fYuVbJg9E—
Jim Rose (@JimRose69872629) March 19, 2015
Bureaucrats can indulge their prejudices without putting the survival of their business in jeopardy. Entrepreneurs who don’t hire on merit risk running out of going out of business because their costs are hire and their businesses less productive.
…market mechanisms impose inescapable penalties on profits whenever for-profit enterprises discriminate against individuals on any basis other than productivity. Though bigoted managers may hold sway for a time, in the long run the profit penalty makes profit-seeking enterprises tenacious champions of fair treatment.
Early examples of the greater propensity for discrimination in the public sector and non-profit organisations are by Armen Alchian and Ruben Kessel in Competition, Monopoly, and the Pursuit of Money in 1962 and Gary Becker’s pioneering The Economics of Discrimination in 1957.
Full-time work on the minimum wage is enough to keep a NZ family out of poverty!
10 May 2015 Leave a comment
in labour economics, minimum wage, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, poverty and inequality Tags: capitalism and freedom, child poverty, family poverty, Left-wing hypocrisy, living wage, New Zealand Greens, New Zealand Labour Party, Simon Chapple
Where a 40-hour workweek doesn't lift families from poverty: bloom.bg/1AFOD0q http://t.co/eBoJSz1TkX—
Bloomberg VisualData (@BBGVisualData) May 23, 2015
An OECD chart that shows New Zealand parents only need to work a little over 40 hours a week on the minimum wage to lift a family out of poverty in New Zealand.
The figure above shows that a lone parent with two children needs to work about 25 hours a week stay out of poverty in 2013 in New Zealand Once taxes are taken into account as well as additional family benefits such as in-work tax credits. New Zealand is one of the easiest places in the world to get out of poverty by working part-time for a sole mother.
The figure above from the OECD shows that New Zealand couple with two children needs to work about 40 hours a week to stay out of poverty. Of course, what is poverty depends on the definition of the poverty line and in this case by the OECD, it is defined as 50% of the median wage after taxes and family benefits. Another common definition of poverty is earning less than 60% of the median wage
The minimum wage is $14.75 per hour in New Zealand while proposals for a living wage in New Zealand are now $19.25 an hour. The Labour Party wants to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour.The Greens want to increase the minimum wage to the living wage.
Simon Chapple and Jonathan Boston pointed out in their excellent book last year on child poverty in New Zealand that full-time work by one parent and part-time work by the other in the same household is enough to lift families out of most definitions of poverty:
Sustained full-time employment of sole parents and the fulltime and part-time employment of two parents, even at low wages, are sufficient to pull the majority of children above most poverty lines, given the various existing tax credits and family supports.
The best available analysis, the most credible analysis, the most independent analysis in New Zealand or anywhere else in the world that having a job and marrying the father of your child is the secret to the leaving poverty is recently by the Living Wage movement in New Zealand.
According to the calculations of the Living Wage movement, earning only $19.25 per hour with a second earner working only 20 hours affords their two children, including a teenager, Sky TV, pets, international travel, video games and 10 hours childcare. This analysis of the Living Wage movement shows that finishing school so your job pays something reasonable and marrying the father of your child affords a comfortable family life.
The OECD’s analysis also showed that incentives for New Zealanders to work more and earn more is better than in most countries in terms of what happens if they earn a wage increase.
In New Zealand, when there is a 5% minimum wage increase, four percentage points of that wage increase actually stays in the hands of the worker.
In some countries such as Australia, the USA and UK, 60 to 80%of the minimum wage increase is gobbled up in reductions in benefits and taxes. At the same time, the minimum wage increase makes it less profitable for your employer to retain you so your job is more at risk.
The only explanation I have for why the Labour Party, NZ Greens and the living wage movement don’t highlight the success of the existing minimum wage in reducing family poverty in New Zealand is mass kidnappings.
But for these abductions most fowl, I’m sure the Labour Party, NZ Greens and the living wage movement would be dancing in the street celebrating successes of capitalism and freedom in New Zealand in keeping families out of poverty through the minimum wage.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments