But the thing I don't understand is this...
A whole bunch of people will be getting something they weren't before. They are not getting it because they are suddenly adding more value, so they must be getting it from someone else. So where from? As far as I can tell, the options are:
1) Businesses owners that can afford it, and won't move elsewhere or change investment plans
2) Businesses that can't afford it and won't get off the ground or go under
3) Businesses that can afford it but will reduce investment or move elsewhere
4) And for Public Sector employment...spending that could be spent on other things (my preference = education, skills etc.)
For me the debate is: of those affected how big is the impact of those that fall into 1)? Which I can see could be a good thing. And how big is the impact of those that fall into 2), 3) and 4)? which I could see as a bad thing? Neither Roger nor Laila shed much light on the balance between the good and bad (although Laila and the CTU guy did do a better job of refering to NZ specifics rather than theory).
Laila didn't convince me (although she did seem better informed than Roger). After all do we really think that the flexible and cheap labour in NZ hasn't contributed to the low unemployment?
But probably the thing that bugs me most in her interview (and the guy from the CTU's) was the comparison to Australia. With a GDP per Capita almost 1.5x higher than ours they can afford higher wages (35,9000 $/head vs 24,420 $/head, source:economist). I suspect largely because they are a country of enourmous resource wealth...more coal, gas, gold, uranium, Iron ore, copper etc. than you can poke a stick at.
Thanks for this... I'm off to London this weekend...will stop by to pay my respects.
The all blacks are doing fine...just need to start building the combinations and a little work on set pieces. I trust Henry as he did wonders with Wales and he didn't have any players of the calibre of McCaw, Carter et al back then.
But what on earth is this all about?...