Yeah every time I think "maybe I should look for jobs back in Aus" the libs do something to make that seen like a losing fucking proposition
Between the higher education bill and this stupid budget, our job market is gonna be tanked for a good decade.
But I'm sure they'll continue to subsidize those 200-300 coal jobs that we so desperately need to retain
(I also don't think the current labour lineup have what it takes to make effective and meaningful policy reversals, but I don't imagine we'll get to find out anytime soon anyway)
I hear people bitching all the time about how everything is underfunded. But mention paying more in taxes, and they'll go for your throat.
You can always mention raising taxes on other people. But not, you know, any kind of tax that your conversation partner would or could conceivably* have to pay.
*In ten years when their property portfolio matures
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
I got so angry remembering that landlord anecdote the other week I convinced my brother to cut our rental rate by about 30%. The rate was already a bit lower than market since we were helping out a single mum. Now the rent just about covers interest payments and I feel much better about the situation.
Our property manager wants to abandon us lol. We are being selfish and stupid to all the hardworking owners in the area, driving down property values and rental prices.
I hear people bitching all the time about how everything is underfunded. But mention paying more in taxes, and they'll go for your throat.
You can always mention raising taxes on other people. But not, you know, any kind of tax that your conversation partner would or could conceivably* have to pay.
*In ten years when their property portfolio matures
The problem with that argument, is that for a lot of people, there's no tax that they don't see as conceivable.
Ten or fifteen years ago, Keith Olberman did a poll asking Americans where they saw themselves financially in ten years. And it was ridiculous how many thought they'd become "rich" in that timeframe. Something like 75%. We're not at that level here, but it's getting up there.
People aren't content on aiming for something reasonable, a comfortable retirement in a modest house where money week-to-week isn't a concern, because you're budgeting fine. No, it's "I want a private yacht/jet/island" type retirement, often, while not even out of middle age.
It's one thing to have dreams. It's another to have those dreams be expectations. They're sold that if you want something badly enough, you'll get it, regardless of circumstances beyond your control. Some will. Most won't.
I hear people bitching all the time about how everything is underfunded. But mention paying more in taxes, and they'll go for your throat.
You can always mention raising taxes on other people. But not, you know, any kind of tax that your conversation partner would or could conceivably* have to pay.
*In ten years when their property portfolio matures
The problem with that argument, is that for a lot of people, there's no tax that they don't see as conceivable.
Yes, not an argument but a joke... Temporarily embarrassed millionaires and all that.
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
I got so angry remembering that landlord anecdote the other week I convinced my brother to cut our rental rate by about 30%. The rate was already a bit lower than market since we were helping out a single mum. Now the rent just about covers interest payments and I feel much better about the situation.
Our property manager wants to abandon us lol. We are being selfish and stupid to all the hardworking owners in the area, driving down property values and rental prices.
I have a couple friends from church who came to own a second house because one of them inherited it from their parents and it's right next door to their house.
They would just "rent" it out to people who needed a place to live, and the "rent" they might charge was for the person to contribute to the rent for someone who needed it from the church
Sco Mo on his phone surfing 4chan or something during this budget reply speech.
Albanese promising a national anti-corruption Commission and wondering why the lady from Carbago, that Sco Mo forced to shake his hand, is still seeing so many of her neighbours still in temporary caravans after the bushfires, with funding untouched.
Albanese also talking about universal childcare, which I assume just means funding at a low level to everyone but no details yet, nor solid commitment.
Thinking about that last one more, giving everyone the maximum subsidy based on the hourly cap, instead of just to low income earners, could help childcare centres pay childcare workers more by exceeding the government's hourly rate cap in order to do so.
I wonder why they hate it so much. Is it because they own a lot of shares in copper mines? Or just that a proper NBN would be a demonstrable public good that would improve societal inclusion and information accessibility for everyone and not just the wealthy?
I wonder why they hate it so much. Is it because they own a lot of shares in copper mines? Or just that a proper NBN would be a demonstrable public good that would improve societal inclusion and information accessibility for everyone and not just the wealthy?
... Oh no wait I know it's the second one.
Because online streaming services are direct competitors to Foxtel.
I get a bit worried about house prices in NZ. There's obvious problems but neither major party has the will (or the brains?) to do anything about it.
I was idly wondering if "housing anxiety" might become a thing in NZ similar to "economic anxiety" in the US. People want to live in their own house and the easy scapegoat is foreigners. But the more I thought about it the more I realized it's already here. Labour did the embarresing "Chinese-looking names" survey and the Maori party are going hard on anti-immigrant rhetoric for this election "why should we let people in and give them houses* when we can't even house our own people?".
*"give them houses" meaning John was talking about refugees, even if he didn't explicitly mention them.
Anyway. I don't think any real party wants to fix the problems with housing and while they do nothing to fix it the "housing anxiety" is only gonna get worse. :rotate:
Tongue-in-cheek, have you had this post in your drafts since 2016? :rotate:
Okay, there's a few points here but a lot of it is *perception* rather than reality.
Labour has been doing a lot to free up supply-side issues - while Kiwibuild has been spectacularly underwhelming at helping kiwis get on the home ownership ladder (and therefore taking all the negative headlines), their state housing work in Kainga Ora has actually been really good. Their work at replacing the RMA is positive, they've done good things to free up local governments to enable intensification, and while they can't immediately solve the loss of tradies resulting from the axing of the apprenticeship programs in the 90's, they have done a lot to restore them so we hopefully we will eventually see a return to healthy levels of construction capacity and capabilty.
Unfortunately this has has hardly moved the needle, in part because it take a while for the effects of these changes to take effect, and in part because growth (only a part of which is immigration) has continued to move faster than then even the now-improved house building environment.
The problem is the issue is complex and the solution requires adjustment in more than one area; and moreover, working through these issues is not something that can be done and see results inside a single term of government.
Jacinda Ardern's "We need CGT, but I want to take the populace with me" is a fucking cop-out, and the wealth protection inequalities continue to provide perverse distorion to the property market. So the economic side is still a bit of a dog's breakfast (although Grant Robertson has said he'd like to discuss some of my wife's tax ideas for this with her). But in terms of actually trying to free up supply-side issues, Labour has been doing a reasonbable job of front footing the hospital pass National gave them.
I have done a democracy, and gone and voted! Weed / Death 2020!
Actually, I also met my local labour MP on the road on the way, and it was very pleasant chatting to them, even though I was already planning on voting for them.
Get out and vote, Kiwis!
+7
Options
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
I saw my electorate Labour MP at the local farmer's market this morning, but he's very much the safe old white male electorate MP thing and skirting by on getting praise for other people's accomplishments. He's very good at turning up and shaking hands and kiss babies at public events, and taking credit for shit other people have done so I guess that passes for "at least he doesn't say stupid shit on tape" politics?
Personally I kinda hope for more from my electorate MP than "could be adequately replaced by a potato", which, incidentally also seems to be the occupation of his National opponent, who is largely the same except even more white, hopeless, and ineffectual.
The actual competent electorate candidate is the TOP one, who I imagine will come a distant third at best, which is *long sigh*. Shit like this is why I dislike monolithic large partys, particularly at the electorate level.
That's unbelievably cool. Your new name is cool guy. Let's have sex.
+1
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
We're going to vote tomorrow
Was going to be today but we spent two hours at the pool instead of just one and we have a very very tired kid that just didn't want to people anymore.
It's just amazing to me how much easier it is here.
Anyways, two ticks for Labour and two yes on referendums from me.
Actually, this was a question I was meaning to ask you anyway, since you've now worked with both the US system, and the one here - since I've always assumed it's easier here, just from the horror stories I've heard, but can you shed any light on why, and whether there's anything we could do to improve our system?
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Voting here is much easier than South Africa, even if the process is much the same just due to scale.
Multiple days and more voting places per capita means that my queues here were 5 minutes instead of 1 hour+.
Also voted yesterday. Double yes, and Greens for party, local vote labor. I don't want labor governing alone, and greens have the best chance of actually forcing some of the reforms we badly need.
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
I should probably vote and see if I can get represented this time. Last time neither my electorate vote nor my party vote made it to parliament (I put my party vote to the Maori party last time, because I believe that it's better for NZ for there to be an independent voice for the Maori seats rather than having them subsumed by Labour, where Maori issues often get quietly played down when Labour are in power). Not going to vote for Tamihere, though, so probably voting TOP electorate and Greens for party this time?
Wish Greens didn't have a policy of "risk a world-leading accident insurance scheme and potentially fuck up one of NZ's leading social protection agencies", though. What they want to do to ACC is fucking terrifying if it goes wrong. Like, the worst case scenario is catastrophic to the extent of collapse for both health services and the courts system. It's really, really, really bad.
I'm waiting til the actual election day, its just more fun.
I checked out my local candidates last night. It was somewhat interesting, sadly there isn't anything of note. Well, I'm definitely not voting for the Green candidate now as they're a bit woo. Shame. Not that it really matters, it's a very safe National seat. I think I might be voting for the, gulp, Labour candidate this year. She's the only one I thought was interesting. I try judge the candidates as individuals, even if they're just another party member at the end of the day.
It's just amazing to me how much easier it is here.
Anyways, two ticks for Labour and two yes on referendums from me.
Actually, this was a question I was meaning to ask you anyway, since you've now worked with both the US system, and the one here - since I've always assumed it's easier here, just from the horror stories I've heard, but can you shed any light on why, and whether there's anything we could do to improve our system?
Once I'm enrolled to vote, I'm enrolled.
The system sends me checks before an election to make sure i'm still enrolled and that i'm enrolled in the correct location.
I got multiple unbiased info packs on what the election and referendums were about.
The referendums are written out in easy to understand language that can be parsed by myself, but also others.
Easy Vote card mailed out the week that voting starts, not months ahead. Included in the pack is detailed instructions with both words and visuals on how to vote.
Voting locations are *everywhere* and you can vote *anywhere* (though it is easier to do so in your closest location).
The poll volunteers are there, crossing your name off the list, there's colour coded papers for voting, Orange for the Government vote and purple for the Referendum. With colour coded boxes to put your filled out forms into.
Bold letters on the bottom of the ballot saying "If you have a spoiled ballot, just let us know and we will get you another one"
NZ voting instructions are clear, concise, and easy to understand both as a native English speaker and for people who may not be completely fluent.
Whereas in the US
I have to proactively double check my registration *every year*.
If I move to another area (state/county) I have to change my registration, the system doesn't check overall.
Trying to find unbiased information is a fucking nightmare. If you're in a larger area you can likely get info packs from the League of Women Voters or other orgs, but if you're in places that aren't as populous (like, Central Maine for example), there is no such services.
If you want to understand your state ballot initiatives (if you have them!) then things like Ballotpedia are *essential*. Referendums and the like aren't written in clear concise language to enable people to have a clear idea on what they are voting for. They are written in ways to obfuscate and confuse to try and trick the Yes voters into No and vice versa. If you are not an informed voter, a proactive voter, or otherwise unable to do the research for yourself, then you may get to Election day and not have a fucking idea what will benefit you and yours bes.
I do get a polling card to take to my local district. It got mailed out in March. It is a flimsy ass fucking piece o paper that is easily damaged and easy to lose.
Your voting locations can be plentiful or bare minimum, all depending on where you live. You could be able to get in and out in under 20 minutes, like at my parent's polling place. Or you have to stand in line for hours to get your chance to cast your ballot.
There is no standard ballot format nationwide. Every state has their own way of doing things. Some will show you the candidate's party affiliation, some will only show you the candidate name. Some you can do a straight up and down Dems on the left, GOP on the right. Some have the Dem President on the left, but the GOP Down-ticket on the left, and vice versa.
There is no clear way how to handle if you make a mistake. You need to know how to request a provisional ballot, or even that such a thing is an option, before going into the polling place.
To be an effective voter in America, you need to be a proactive voter. You need to inform yourself, educate yourself, and be all rugged individual about it. Any help or assistance in being able to cast your vote comes from organizations that are passionate about helping you do so. They are almost always non-profit organizations that are run on a shoestring budget with exhausted people who are both optimistic and cynical in equal parts.
To be an effective voter in New Zealand, you need to vote. Yes, you need to also be informed but the information is made available to you, you don't have to go out and search for it yourself. I mean you can. but it's not really *necessary*
I've been thinking about the difference between voting for my Senator/Congressperson back home and my MP here and I'm not sure which I prefer. I paid far closer attention to my US votes on the individual level than I did here. Here, I ticked the box next to the Labour candidate and I didn't really look up to see what her individual 'policies' might be because, well, she's going to follow the Party's lead. I'm not sure if that's better or not. Still working on that.
The short version is they want to disband it and replace it with something *bigger* and *better*, without any guarantee that the replacement would be a viable ongoing functional safety net.
The slightly longer version is that ACC is a public accident insurance scheme that actually provides a huge degree of benefits to the entire country. All employers pay a levy, everyone is automatically covered, everything is no-fault. I'm not about to claim it's always perfect, and yeah, there's always going to be contention in individual rulings or specific coverage, but the truth is that we get benefits from standardisation and economy of scale in a way where if you get injured, you can just basically tick a standard form when you go to seek medical attention and everything just works. Our courts also benefit from not needing to churn through hundred and thousands personal injury lawsuits and other ambulance-chasing bullshit that clogs up courts elsewhere, and by and large everyone benefits from comprehensive coverage, even if you're just a tourist visiting the country for a couple days.
While you'll often encounter gripes and complaints about specifics at the edges of the scheme, by and large what most people want from ACC is for it to be a bit better here and there, not that ACC was done away with so we could move to some free-market profit-driven insurance / legal personal injury industry, where people who have lost their ability to gain income drive money to wealthy shareholders and lawyers needing to pay off the mortgage on their weekend beachhouse and $300,000 car.
So ACC: room for improvement, but mostly no one wants to live in a NZ without it, really.
So what the Greens want to do is replace it with an 'Agency for Comprehensive Care', adding long-term illness and disability to the the things ACC covers. This is a fundamental change to both the purpose and funding model for ACC, to the point where you're either:
A) doing away with existing ACC and replacing it wholesale with an entirely new entity which is entirely unproven Sadling the exsisting ACC with an entirely new stream of expense with no clear known funding
And the saying the quiet part out loud part of those option is that either one risks collapsing the existing system that we have.
Now I don't mind the idea that long-term illness or disability should have a social safety net. There's certainly a lot of merit to the idea, and I have no problem with that being a policy of a political party.
Set it up independantly, give it its own legislation, have its funding and expenses isolated and protected so that we can see and understand how the business model works. If it's viable, it will stand on its own two feet and the scheme will be able to run itself without risking the existing accident compensation we have. In a decade or so, if the two are compatible, you can go through a MSD/MOBI-style consolidation of function and create a joint comprehensive compensation scheme.
But there's this terrible habit for politicians on the left to see something that's functioning well and working and loading it with more and more additional crap to the point where like a spinning plate it gets unbalanced and shatters (the right sees something that's working and takes away until the same thing happens).
So, you know, I don't mind the policy of "maybe we could have an ACC-like entity that could cover additional other circumstance it's shitty to have happen".
But my opinion is also "Dear fucking god hands off ACC what the fuck do you think you're playing at do you know how fucking disasterous and expensive it would be for the country if you fuck this up?".
Posts
Between the higher education bill and this stupid budget, our job market is gonna be tanked for a good decade.
But I'm sure they'll continue to subsidize those 200-300 coal jobs that we so desperately need to retain
(I also don't think the current labour lineup have what it takes to make effective and meaningful policy reversals, but I don't imagine we'll get to find out anytime soon anyway)
*In ten years when their property portfolio matures
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
:winky:
Our property manager wants to abandon us lol. We are being selfish and stupid to all the hardworking owners in the area, driving down property values and rental prices.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
The problem with that argument, is that for a lot of people, there's no tax that they don't see as conceivable.
Ten or fifteen years ago, Keith Olberman did a poll asking Americans where they saw themselves financially in ten years. And it was ridiculous how many thought they'd become "rich" in that timeframe. Something like 75%. We're not at that level here, but it's getting up there.
People aren't content on aiming for something reasonable, a comfortable retirement in a modest house where money week-to-week isn't a concern, because you're budgeting fine. No, it's "I want a private yacht/jet/island" type retirement, often, while not even out of middle age.
It's one thing to have dreams. It's another to have those dreams be expectations. They're sold that if you want something badly enough, you'll get it, regardless of circumstances beyond your control. Some will. Most won't.
Yes, not an argument but a joke... Temporarily embarrassed millionaires and all that.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
I have a couple friends from church who came to own a second house because one of them inherited it from their parents and it's right next door to their house.
They would just "rent" it out to people who needed a place to live, and the "rent" they might charge was for the person to contribute to the rent for someone who needed it from the church
good folks, I love their whole family tbh
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
Fantastic. Great move. Well done Angus.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
Albanese promising a national anti-corruption Commission and wondering why the lady from Carbago, that Sco Mo forced to shake his hand, is still seeing so many of her neighbours still in temporary caravans after the bushfires, with funding untouched.
Albanese also talking about universal childcare, which I assume just means funding at a low level to everyone but no details yet, nor solid commitment.
Thinking about that last one more, giving everyone the maximum subsidy based on the hourly cap, instead of just to low income earners, could help childcare centres pay childcare workers more by exceeding the government's hourly rate cap in order to do so.
Facebook
Dangerous rhetoric is more mainstream than I think.
... Oh no wait I know it's the second one.
Because online streaming services are direct competitors to Foxtel.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
Origin: KafkaAU B-Net: Kafka#1778
I got a free subscription and still felt ripped off.
PSN / Xbox / NNID: Fodder185
Origin: KafkaAU B-Net: Kafka#1778
Nah, Facebook punted all the QAnon stuff off.
Pulling this back up to say that there's a really good summary of the housing crisis on Stuff today, which looks not just at the causes of the current rises, but also the specific policies of the parties and where they might actually help (or, you know, not).
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/300128352/were-stuck-on-a-path-of-house-price-rises-that-is-hard-to-get-off
Actually, I also met my local labour MP on the road on the way, and it was very pleasant chatting to them, even though I was already planning on voting for them.
Get out and vote, Kiwis!
Personally I kinda hope for more from my electorate MP than "could be adequately replaced by a potato", which, incidentally also seems to be the occupation of his National opponent, who is largely the same except even more white, hopeless, and ineffectual.
The actual competent electorate candidate is the TOP one, who I imagine will come a distant third at best, which is *long sigh*. Shit like this is why I dislike monolithic large partys, particularly at the electorate level.
Was going to be today but we spent two hours at the pool instead of just one and we have a very very tired kid that just didn't want to people anymore.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
If you have a Netflix subscription it can go right through your Foxtel box too. There's even a Netflix specific button on the remote!
It's just amazing to me how much easier it is here.
Anyways, two ticks for Labour and two yes on referendums from me.
As much as I would like a labour/green coalition. I don't want to run the risk of it needing to be a labour/NZF coalition.
My local seat is kind of up for grabs this time since Paula is retiring. So we've been getting bombarded with New Conservative party crap.
They even sent me a magnet. I hate throwing away magnets. But needs must.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Multiple days and more voting places per capita means that my queues here were 5 minutes instead of 1 hour+.
Also less violence.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
Wish Greens didn't have a policy of "risk a world-leading accident insurance scheme and potentially fuck up one of NZ's leading social protection agencies", though. What they want to do to ACC is fucking terrifying if it goes wrong. Like, the worst case scenario is catastrophic to the extent of collapse for both health services and the courts system. It's really, really, really bad.
I checked out my local candidates last night. It was somewhat interesting, sadly there isn't anything of note. Well, I'm definitely not voting for the Green candidate now as they're a bit woo. Shame. Not that it really matters, it's a very safe National seat. I think I might be voting for the, gulp, Labour candidate this year. She's the only one I thought was interesting. I try judge the candidates as individuals, even if they're just another party member at the end of the day.
Darryl is currently under investigation by said ICAC investigation for dodgy real estate dealings.
NZ voting instructions are clear, concise, and easy to understand both as a native English speaker and for people who may not be completely fluent.
Whereas in the US
To be an effective voter in America, you need to be a proactive voter. You need to inform yourself, educate yourself, and be all rugged individual about it. Any help or assistance in being able to cast your vote comes from organizations that are passionate about helping you do so. They are almost always non-profit organizations that are run on a shoestring budget with exhausted people who are both optimistic and cynical in equal parts.
To be an effective voter in New Zealand, you need to vote. Yes, you need to also be informed but the information is made available to you, you don't have to go out and search for it yourself. I mean you can. but it's not really *necessary*
I've been thinking about the difference between voting for my Senator/Congressperson back home and my MP here and I'm not sure which I prefer. I paid far closer attention to my US votes on the individual level than I did here. Here, I ticked the box next to the Labour candidate and I didn't really look up to see what her individual 'policies' might be because, well, she's going to follow the Party's lead. I'm not sure if that's better or not. Still working on that.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
The short version is they want to disband it and replace it with something *bigger* and *better*, without any guarantee that the replacement would be a viable ongoing functional safety net.
The slightly longer version is that ACC is a public accident insurance scheme that actually provides a huge degree of benefits to the entire country. All employers pay a levy, everyone is automatically covered, everything is no-fault. I'm not about to claim it's always perfect, and yeah, there's always going to be contention in individual rulings or specific coverage, but the truth is that we get benefits from standardisation and economy of scale in a way where if you get injured, you can just basically tick a standard form when you go to seek medical attention and everything just works. Our courts also benefit from not needing to churn through hundred and thousands personal injury lawsuits and other ambulance-chasing bullshit that clogs up courts elsewhere, and by and large everyone benefits from comprehensive coverage, even if you're just a tourist visiting the country for a couple days.
While you'll often encounter gripes and complaints about specifics at the edges of the scheme, by and large what most people want from ACC is for it to be a bit better here and there, not that ACC was done away with so we could move to some free-market profit-driven insurance / legal personal injury industry, where people who have lost their ability to gain income drive money to wealthy shareholders and lawyers needing to pay off the mortgage on their weekend beachhouse and $300,000 car.
So ACC: room for improvement, but mostly no one wants to live in a NZ without it, really.
So what the Greens want to do is replace it with an 'Agency for Comprehensive Care', adding long-term illness and disability to the the things ACC covers. This is a fundamental change to both the purpose and funding model for ACC, to the point where you're either:
A) doing away with existing ACC and replacing it wholesale with an entirely new entity which is entirely unproven
And the saying the quiet part out loud part of those option is that either one risks collapsing the existing system that we have.
Now I don't mind the idea that long-term illness or disability should have a social safety net. There's certainly a lot of merit to the idea, and I have no problem with that being a policy of a political party.
Set it up independantly, give it its own legislation, have its funding and expenses isolated and protected so that we can see and understand how the business model works. If it's viable, it will stand on its own two feet and the scheme will be able to run itself without risking the existing accident compensation we have. In a decade or so, if the two are compatible, you can go through a MSD/MOBI-style consolidation of function and create a joint comprehensive compensation scheme.
But there's this terrible habit for politicians on the left to see something that's functioning well and working and loading it with more and more additional crap to the point where like a spinning plate it gets unbalanced and shatters (the right sees something that's working and takes away until the same thing happens).
So, you know, I don't mind the policy of "maybe we could have an ACC-like entity that could cover additional other circumstance it's shitty to have happen".
But my opinion is also "Dear fucking god hands off ACC what the fuck do you think you're playing at do you know how fucking disasterous and expensive it would be for the country if you fuck this up?".