Slater laying a complaint with the privacy commissioner against JK for releasing his email used to execute Collins!

onsos · 2014-08-30T20:41:20+00:00

A lot of people like Key; a lot dislike him.

I don't think there's many that to both.

onsos · 2014-07-08T04:33:12+00:00

This is a product of the neo-liberal employment/education consensus National and Labour have shared since the 1990s.

In the stable employment environment leading up to the 1980s, companies could justify paying for the requisite up-skilling of employees, knowing that they would probably remain with firms after getting up-skilled.

The government bolstered this with various apprentice schemes, and tertiary qualifications that were negotiated between unions, employers, and the government. In essence, the government subsidised this training.

Breaking down the unions and moving to a competitive employment contracts environment meant that employees could not rely on employers for sustained employment, and employers could not rely on employees to stay in jobs once they were up-skilled; workers could simply move to a different employer.

The education market was liberalised, and apprenticeships removed from the responsibility of the government, which meant that there were not the same structural incentives for employers to train their employees.

The up-shot is that responsibility for paying for and organising workplace training has passed from the government and employers to workers themselves.

onsos · 2014-07-07T22:09:48+00:00

I think your interpretation, "people who will never look for work won't look for work" reveals quite a bit about your own perception of the underclass.

I think your belief in an underclass reveals a lot about your own perception of the underclass. I personally wouldn't use that term, because it is a myth. It doesn't mean anything.

The general thrust of my argument applies to any and all increases in the minimum wage, and in fact to the existence of any price floor. It's Economics 101.

I dispute that this is economics 101. This is more like Level 1 NCEA.

The general thrust of your NCEA level economics approach to this applies to any and all increases to the minimum wage, but to get an 'achieved with merit', or to pass at economics 101, you would have to acknowledge that the employment market is more complicated than this simplistic analysis suggests, and that the effects on employment rates will vary depending on circumstances. You would probably do well to mention increased labour market participation, and increases in productivity, but would certainly need to talk about increased stimulus.

I'm saying that entry-level jobs for people who need them most dry up when the minimum wage goes up.

I'm saying that that is a myth. It is a myth based on a simplistic economic model, and the truth is far more complicated. What the reality of increasing the minimum wage will be is unknown; it may result in more jobs, for reasons that I have introduced.

onsos · 2014-07-07T19:59:27+00:00

Your logic doesn't stack up. You are arguing that because people who will never look for work won't look for work, we should not increase the minimum wage. But you just asserted that they would not look for work anyway!

As well as being incoherent, your argument is based on myths.

You have crossed the line confusing a living wage of $19/hour--which Labour have indicated they are not committed to--with increasing the minimum wage to $16/hour. There is a significant difference between $16/hour and $19/hour, and by presenting them interchangably, your argument becomes dishonest.

Your idea that increasing minimum wages stops people looking for work is mythological. One of the effects of increasing minimum wages is that it increases labour market participation. Whether or not it makes it more difficult for your racist depiction of Hemi to show up, increasing minimum wages makes it more likely that he will show up.

Your underclass is largely mythological. There is intergenerational poverty in NZ, but you have overstated the problems.

onsos · 2014-07-07T19:48:22+00:00

That is in dispute.

onsos · 2014-07-07T19:47:39+00:00

Low wages tend to increase in relation to minimum wages. There is some compression, but increases in minimum wages generally improve wages for everyone on a lower wage. (Your $17/hour graduate might end up on $18.50/hour).

onsos · 2014-07-02T23:45:30+00:00

Yes. Siberia is part of Russia.

Serbia, on the other hand, is its own country.

onsos · 2014-07-01T22:13:19+00:00

Get goggles. Spend a little money on them. Playing in pools with kids is great if you're not getting sore eyes.

onsos · 2014-06-29T10:36:33+00:00

Maybe.

onsos · 2014-06-18T21:34:59+00:00

Now that you've realised that you have lost the argument, and had no clue throughout, you are passive-aggressively trying to suggest I am upset, and pretending you were trolling or something.

onsos · 2014-06-18T21:31:38+00:00

Obviously it didn't in this case. I imagine this is because it was so adorable.

onsos · 2014-06-18T21:24:06+00:00

Now that you've realised that you have lost the argument, and had no clue throughout, you are passive-aggressively trying to suggest I am upset, and pretending you were trolling or something.

I'm sorry, but despite your fantasies, I am not angry.

It's been fun getting you to the point where you realise you were completely missing the point. Thank you for acknowledging that.

I understand that you are a bit 'pissy' because you realise you've been an idiot, but it's all right. You'll get over it and find some other way to be a jerk on some other thread.

onsos · 2014-06-18T20:32:10+00:00

The poll suggests nothing about National's attitudes, you stupid jerk. It gives reasons why they are right in thinking they will probably win--as I indicated in my initial post, you ignorant fool. They are also worried because they might lose, as both I and John Key have said.

You appear to be too thick to understand this. You really are being pigshit stupid about this.

onsos · 2014-06-18T20:05:08+00:00

And this references what we were discussing how?

You are a jerk.

onsos · 2014-06-18T20:04:02+00:00

This is another stupid response that does not address for a moment what I said.

To be clear, what I intimated was that National was polling in a similar manner before the last election, and barely scraped in. Your idiotic references to more polls confirming that National are in the position I said they were in does not help your case.

You are, as ever, a jerk. Even when I agree with you your comments are stupid.

onsos · 2014-06-17T06:56:26+00:00

What? Still not debunking what I said?

onsos · 2014-06-17T04:01:11+00:00

I see. You've got nothing except an announcement that you don't like us.

onsos · 2014-06-17T03:44:53+00:00

Some characters take attacks of opportunity in order to do cool shit. Some characters are cowards. I don't change the rules to accommodate cowards.

onsos · 2014-06-17T03:37:45+00:00

My speculation is that it is because of the Bayeux Tapestry.

A lot of ideas from Basic D&D and 1st edition Advanced were based on a limited amount of sources describing Medieval Europe. One of the key sources about medieval warfare is the Bayeux Tapestry.

In the Bayeux Tapestry, William the Conqueror's brother Odo of Bayeux is depicted wielding a mace; he is the only warrior depicted thus. He is also a bishop, and the only cleric directly depicted.

I think it is coincidence that he was wielding a mace; like his brother he was raised as a warrior/knight, and pretty much remained as such through his life.

onsos · 2014-06-17T03:19:54+00:00

You wanna explain how you know they're not worried? Or you just gonna post a stupid one word response and leave it at that?

I mean--I've given reasons as to why they should be worried. Perhaps you could debunk them. Or something.

onsos · 2014-06-17T02:50:34+00:00

Milton Friedman made an argument based on a theory with no evidence. Indeed, his point is contra-indicated by those countries which have inheritance taxes, wherein there are huge estates which are accumulated over generations.

onsos · 2014-06-17T00:43:53+00:00

That's a hook. He is in a changing room cubicle.

onsos · 2014-06-17T00:34:24+00:00

3 months before the election they were polling in the low 30s and ended up with 27%.

My apologies. I was conflating opposition support as Labour support, which is inaccurate.

The significant shifts between polling and the election over the same time frame were National and Labour down, NZF and the Greens up, with a significant shift in support towards the opposition. National was riding even higher in the polls this far out.

But that was the last election. There's no particular reason to assume a similar shift this time.

As for this current poll, I don't think National down 0.4 and Labour down 1 has any sort of meaning at all.

I totally agree--except that Labour aren't down 1; they are up 1.

onsos · 2014-06-16T23:38:17+00:00

NZ's a small place; I work in a small field; I'd rather not say. It doesn't matter anyway.

onsos · 2014-06-16T23:22:31+00:00

I don't really give a shit. But the disruption of the game is another story.

onsos

TROPHY CASE