Inside New Zealand

[SPman]

cost of house in 1950 $8,450.00 , 1960 $12,700.00 ,

In 1950 the average income per year was $3,210.00 and by 1959 was $5,010.00

so the average mortgage was about 20% of your income , of course it was better

Stephen

- 1959 - $5,010? I thought it was around 1,000 quid ($2,000) Most people of our aquaintance (mainly tradesmen) earned around 1,000 - 1,100 pounds a year.....only Freezing Workers earned more than that. A "man's wage" of 20-22 quid a week was considered good in 1960.

[avgas]

Do ya reckon they've asked and been told that they're on a list? S'ok though, while they wait they can go and shelter in the cardboard church mebee, or perhaps the stadium is finished by now?

I found it ironic that they were sleeping in a tent but the truck cab was empty.........

Donate a tent, save the stupid.

[mashman]

I found it ironic that they were sleeping in a tent but the truck cab was empty.........

Donate a tent, save the stupid.

you know what I meant sonny

[Brian d marge]

- 1959 - $5,010? I thought it was around 1,000 quid ($2,000) Most people of our aquaintance (mainly tradesmen) earned around 1,000 - 1,100 pounds a year.....only Freezing Workers earned more than that. A "man's wage" of 20-22 quid a week was considered good in 1960.

I'm a child of the 60s , I got that figure from the new Zealand museum , when I get home later tonight , I'll will reconfirm double check ... It was the national average ...probably those aucklanders bumping the average up again

Stephen

[BoristheBiter]

Our top income decile starts at a mere $72,000.
The top one per cent begins at $170,000
The top 0.4 per cent at $250,000.
Presiding over this tiny group are the chief executives of large companies who receive an average salary of $1.5 million.
Meanwhile, 70 per cent of New Zealanders earn less than $43,000
50 per cent earn less than $24,000

- Max Rashbrooke, - `Inequality: a New Zealand crisis '

Between 1997 and 2006,for example, transnational corporations made NZ $50.3 billion in profits from their New Zealand operations, yet only 32 per cent of this sum was reinvested domestically.

As of 2011 a global super-entity of 147 interlinked firms predominated. All of the top 50 except one were financial institutions. Wade comments that `such concentration provides financial firms with the leverage to colonise the governments of nation states and shape public policy in line with their preferences`


http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/09/03...s-real-agenda/

All I want to know is where did he get his stats from as the last census that is able to be viewed is from '06.
Also maybe the fact that 25% is on the unemployment benefit might have something to do with it.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006...e-by-work.aspx

Just another lefty one sided pile of shit journalism that the internet is famous for.

[Ocean1]

Our top income decile starts at a mere $72,000.
The top one per cent begins at $170,000
The top 0.4 per cent at $250,000.
Presiding over this tiny group are the chief executives of large companies who receive an average salary of $1.5 million.
Meanwhile, 70 per cent of New Zealanders earn less than $43,000
50 per cent earn less than $24,000

- Max Rashbrooke, - `Inequality: a New Zealand crisis '

Between 1997 and 2006,for example, transnational corporations made NZ $50.3 billion in profits from their New Zealand operations, yet only 32 per cent of this sum was reinvested domestically.

As of 2011 a global super-entity of 147 interlinked firms predominated. All of the top 50 except one were financial institutions. Wade comments that `such concentration provides financial firms with the leverage to colonise the governments of nation states and shape public policy in line with their preferences`


http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/09/03...s-real-agenda/

Wonder what the extreme right's figures look like...

And on a completely non-oppositional hand I also wonder what those transnational corporations paid in wages over that time.

I get sooooo sick of reading shit that's so heavily spun you can hear it humming. And to be honest I've long since given up believing anything having the slightest resemblance to "proof" of someone else's opinion.

Just call me Thomas Covenant.

[Brian d marge]

Wonder what the extreme right's figures look like...

And on a completely non-oppositional hand I also wonder what those transnational corporations paid in wages over that time.

I get sooooo sick of reading shit that's so heavily spun you can hear it humming. And to be honest I've long since given up believing anything having the slightest resemblance to "proof" of someone else's opinion.

Just call me Thomas Covenant.

We know that , possibly the ONLY 2 facts you have ever produced,

Stephen

As for Thomas Covenant while that is a fitting name , both he an you good self are fantasy novelists , A more fitting first name might have been "John" .

chavannes motto

[Ocean1]

We know that , possibly the ONLY 2 facts you have ever produced,

Stephen

As for Thomas Covenant while that is a fitting name , both he an you good self are fantasy novelists

It's somewhat axiomatic that you should be as wrong wrt opinion as you often are about facts. An equal opportunity failure, in fact.

Take mate Thomas, for example: He’s not, in fact a novelist of any sort. Perhaps you got a bit flustered and confused in analysing your research.

Again.

[puddytat]

Just another lefty one sided pile of shit journalism that the internet is famous for.

You're more than welcome to come up with opposing arguments & articles from the Right Wing Bloggs.........Oh wait .... there aint fuck all of them....

[BMWST?]

Re read that article , it says "wealth creation " which could be "savings"

yes , As I pointed out , "abe Economics " is about getting the money to flow "quickly" If you "save " that’s good the bank can lend , ( bank or financial institution ) but the money must create "capital wealth" which then drives production ( but production needs consumption)

( least that’s how I read it )

So the "more the bank lends and the more the money is used to create Capital wealth ( plant and machinery etc) the more production rises. The more production the more consumption rises and the money flows ie drives the economy

but what happens if no one is buying ? ie not spending what happens to the value of the "wealth " ??and production?? and if money is the conduit for capital transfer the more "Money " you can move the greater your accumulation of capital wealth , possibly creating a divide between those that can , and those that cant .

least that’s how I read it

As for wages , I invest money in a new plant , to make cars , I invest in robots ,,the cost of cars drop due to efficiencies but what about the worker ? retrains ?


the link needs to be thunk about more and possibly a re-reading of Hayak ( I which he could have discovered the paragraph )



Stephen

and this is where it falls down.This analasys is a model of perpetual motion.But if you sack all your workers and install robots who the fuck is gonna buy the cars?The robots!?And the same is true of Globalisation.If you outsource everything thats fine,but you wont have anyone at home to buy.

[puddytat]

The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen Donaldson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chr...homas_Covenant
John Key gets my vote to play Lord Foul.

[Brian d marge]

It's somewhat axiomatic that you should be as wrong wrt opinion as you often are about facts. An equal opportunity failure, in fact.

True , you have been 100% correct in all the the facts you have posted. Not sure about the health and beauty one , but the others are 100% correct in all you have posted.

Take mate Thomas, for example: He’s not, in fact a novelist of any sort. Perhaps you got a bit flustered and confused in analysing your research.

See below .

Again.

and this is where it falls down.This analasys is a model of perpetual motion.But if you sack all your workers and install robots who the fuck is gonna buy the cars?The robots!?And the same is true of Globalisation.If you outsource everything thats fine,but you wont have anyone at home to buy.

thats right , and was one of the questions I raised !

The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen Donaldson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chr...homas_Covenant
John Key gets my vote to play Lord Foul.

Thats what I thought to . I would have changed the title to " The Chronicals of John Thomas Covenant " that would fit nicely.

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

- 1959 - $5,010? I thought it was around 1,000 quid ($2,000) Most people of our aquaintance (mainly tradesmen) earned around 1,000 - 1,100 pounds a year.....only Freezing Workers earned more than that. A "man's wage" of 20-22 quid a week was considered good in 1960.

ok rechecked I found what happened I clicked the link to an AMERICAN site . Any way thanks for that. FROM the 1950 census

http://www3.stats.govt.nz/New_Zealan...ZOYB_1950.html

i get a house to be worth 1368 pounds ( thats better ) and a income of "under 300 pounds per year ( 50.8% of people) which gives a ratio of 36.48 %

If anyone can get a better figure than under 300 ,please !

in 2013 the average house price was $ 371 000 and the average income , 48600 ( roughly 371x2/25 ) I get 61 %

If anyone has any better figure let me know

The original point still stands , though at 36% of income in 1950 it would have still been stressful to buy a house if the marker for Mortgage stress was 30 % of income

Stephen

[BoristheBiter]

You're more than welcome to come up with opposing arguments & articles from the Right Wing Bloggs.........Oh wait .... there aint fuck all of them....

That's because right wingers have the intelligence to think and work stuff out for themselves and don't need some jerno hack to manipulate stats to try and make an argument.

Still haven't seen any facts to back your argument yet either but like lefty arguments they never do.
But just for you here are some points that are over looked in his statement.
1) all ages are used in his post,
2) all income (work, investment and benefit) is used in his post,
3) all work (full, part time) is used in his post,
4) all stats he uses is from the 2006 census making them 8 years old,
5) all work types and qualifications have been used in his post,

also fails to show that over 9% are unemployed or not in the lab our force. but are earning over 30K

Funny if you look at the 2006 census you will find that most over the median are in between 24 and 60 maybe that correlates to employment. Who would have thunk.

[Ocean1]

True , you have been 100% correct in all the the facts you have posted. Not sure about the health and beauty one , but the others are 100% correct in all you have posted.

You're still struggling with what's fact and what's opinion. Let me help you out, there: that was opinion, albeit particularly relevant and qualified opinion.

see below

Puddytat's reference?

Yes, it shows that you were wrong, (even on your second attempt) and that Thomas Covenant is not in fact a novelist.

Your problem in discerning the real world from the fantasy world is sorta consistent with your problem with facts and opinion, innit?