Don’t know the best way to put this but ill try.
As much as I love this country, we have fallen soo far behind. I don’t want to get to political, but I think Labour tried to fix it in one way, now Nat will try the other. Neither will work in the time they have.
We always prided ourselves on our past accomplishments- women vote, Hillary, Rutherford, Nuclear Free, Maori Batallion - and what we are as a country - massive dairy producers, amazing tourist destination, friendly people. But we have dwelled on it too long and got complacent. Our desire to repeat our past success has made us miss opportunities that require years of investment, and meant we are now in a cultural and economic hole that will be increasingly difficult, expensive and time consuming to get ourselves out from.
We have a tiny population and limited housing in an empty country where people have limited desire and finances for kids. Massive farms that produce income for a few overseas investors or historic families. Massively increasing inflation and cost of living due to our long supply chains and small industry base, especially compared to overseas. Falling education at a time we needs teachers, medical persons, engineers and tradies… unis are slashing courses, councils are running out of money, and overseas investors will funnel more out of the country.
I just want others thoughts around this - I have multiple ideas and theories, but I want to hear from you all.
I would argue that Labour’s plan, while well intended, worked better as a vote gatherer than supporting the middle/lower classes. It effectively increased the cost of a working hour, without touching the value that work hour provided - artificially increasing wages without increasing the value that wage provided.
It effectively increased the cost of a working hour, without touching the value that work hour provided - artificially increasing wages without increasing the value that wage provided.
This is the exact myth we’re told under neoliberalism that the comment you’re replying to sets out - increases in productivity or value are already not leading to increased wages for workers. Working a little bit more/harder to generate more value doesn’t reflect higher wages in this system.
Plus our lower productivity compared to many developed nations is because of low wages. Increasing wages means employers have more incentive to invest in those people, including training, better tools, and process automation requiring fewer, higher skilled staff.
Basically, you can fake it till you make it. Increasing wages leads to higher productivity long term. Low wages make employees replacable and there’s no incentive to invest in them.
I feel like this one is an egg or chicken arguement - you could also argue that because each individual provides such a small amount of economic value compared to other countries (reference back in 2010 was ~80k per capita vs 300k-3mil overseas) we can’t provide the wages, or tax revenue to grow.
