On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 22:23:06 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

jmschristophers@gmail.com wrote: >>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11876548 >>>

Locked into its high cost/low wage economy, an uncertain future now beckons. >>>

With "The 1%" holding most of the wealth and power over its distribution, >>>and
with automation ramping up along with increasing populations, the best you >>>can
hope for is a future that demands ever higher required skills rewarded by >>>ever
lower incomes for those at the workface.

So, with your children's and your children's children in mind, how do you >>>feel
about that?

Fascinating!
Not the story but your take on it! Seems a bit negative to me, but then I am >>a
glass half full peson; you?
Oh I should point out the less than subtle suggestion that this ia a National >>government failure (note the mention of the "past nine years") - does he >>seriously think this is an issue that has existed for only nine years? >>Amazing!
Tony

Try this extract:
"Unfortunately, since then the GFC companies have retrenched. They've
focused on costs and paying down debt. Labour productivity has fallen
all over the developed world.

Employers have kind of got away with it because workers haven't had
much bargaining power.

The demise of unions, the casualisation of the workforce and
globalisation that allows manufacturing and (thanks to the internet)
service jobs to be outsourced to cheaper markets - has added up to
workers getting a smaller share of the economic returns from their
labour than they used to.

At least that's what the OECD research says.

Now low unemployment and skills shortages should start to put a bit of >pressure on employers. If they want to get into expansion mode they
need to start reinvesting - in capital and workers."
— — — — — — — —
Looking at the post GFC period does sort of limit the scope, but the
mention of demise of unions, casualisation of the workforce and
outsourcing have also been particular features of the period of the >National-led governments. Also in recent years is the effect of
reductions in support for trade training, and higher immigration to
fill labour gaps (apparently we just couldn't train enough of our own
people to become baristas . . .) - while further encouraging low
wages.

that we would "catch up with Australia" - and this progress report
from 2010: >http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3414359/Kiwi-wages-slip-further-behind

Now Key's promises were always unachievable, but they delivered votes
and that is all that matteredat that time; but its worse than just not >catching up - New Zealand has actually fallen behind. That New
Zealanders are being treated badly in Australia is because there were
so many wanting to find jobs there - finally even the Liberal Party
realised that Australia was racting badly to the increased housing
costs, competition for jobs, and infractructure costs generated by >immigration - and immigration from New Zealand was largely
uncontrolled.

Modern problems, Tony, yes some have their roots in small trends from
over a decade ago, but lets keep the "Its all Labours fault"or "but
they all do it" for cases that are actually relevant, shall we?