In this section
Offers for readers
Follow the news from interest
The comment stream
Recent comments
- 1 of 20787
- ››
Editors choice
- 1 of 295
- ››
Finance sector jobs
Reporting to the Senior Manager Operational Risk Effectiveness and Assurance, the key focu...more
New Zealand
Reporting to the Head of Finance - Retail and Business Bank the key focus of this role is ...more
New Zealand
This role in consultation with the Financial Controller provides financial, strategic and ...more
New Zealand
If you are motivated by the prospect of seeing the big picture, developing your team and m...more
New Zealand

The news stream
Latest news
Most commented
- BNZ cuts most fixed mortgage rates 48
- 90 seconds at 9 am 43
- Thursday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 30
- Fonterra to tighten TAF rules 30
- English wants more house builds 30
- Fonterra cuts payout forecast 30
- Budget tax moves to target high income NZers 29
- Govt eyes NZ$1.4b revenue grab 25
- Wednesday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 24
- Amanda's Take Five for Wednesday 23
Most viewed
Treasury warns NZ net public debt track still unsustainable by 2050 despite better economic outlook
Treasury has redone its projections for government debt out to 2050 and has repeated its warning that New Zealand's net public debt will surpass 100% of GDP without changes to policies on pensions or improvements to New Zealand's economic performance.
Treasury again suggested a public debate over retirement ages, means testing of pensions, cutting public pensions, raising labour force participation for the elderly, increased migration rates and increased labour productivity, particularly in government.
Treasury released its long term fiscal outlook in 2009 in the depths of the Global Financial Crisis, but since then the New Zealand budget deficit outlook has improved and the global growth outlook has improved. The government also announced major taxation reforms.
Treasury Deputy Chief Executive Gabs Makhlouf told the Retirement Income Policy and Intergenerational Equity conference in Wellington that were Treasury to redo its projections based on the May 2010 budget then net public debt would be expected to rise from around 20% now to over 100% by 2050. This is better than the 223% projected in 2009, but is still close to the net debt currently causing problems for Greece, he said.
"The underlying reality is that the Crown’s finances are not sustainable into the long-term on the basis of projecting forward historic trends in spending," Makhlouf said in the speech, which is available here.
"It isn’t the end of the world – but it is a warning signal for us to prepare for action," he said.
"New Zealanders need to do some significant things differently in the years ahead from what they have become accustomed to. Some serious trade-offs will be required to maintain the Crown’s finances in order."
New Zealand was transitioning from a high fertility/high mortality state to a low fertility/low mortality state. By 2060 New Zealand was expected to have four people aged 65 years and over for every 10 New Zealanders of working age between 15 and 64. That is up from a ratio of two to 10 today.
Related Topics
In the next 50 years the combined pre-working age population and population over 65 would be around 7 for ever 10 of working age, up from 5 for every 10 now. Makhlouf said this was likely to reduce the labour force participation rate from around 68% to 63% by 2060. He noted this also took into account the likelihood of more older New Zealanders working for longer.
"If we assume, perhaps optimistically, that those older workers undertake paid employment at around the same number of hours as the average of the current workforce, that still won’t be enough to prevent New Zealand’s trend real economic growth rate from easing back from an average of 3% per annum over the next three years, to a bit under 2% from the mid-2020s," he said.
"The rise in the ratio of elderly to the working age population will act as a drag on the economy’s potential growth rate. Over time, our economy will be constrained by a lower “non-inflationary” speed limit than we are currently constrained by and this will coincide with a period when the call on the Crown’s resources to fund social services and entitlements will be rising because the ratio of dependents will be rising relative to those of working age," he said.
"Today, around 25% of the government’s annual operating spending goes on social services, including health and New Zealand Superannuation, to the 13% of the population aged 65 and over. Those ratios are projected to rise dramatically by mid-century, reaching as high as 40% of the central government’s annual operating spending for a group that, by 2050, will constitute around 25% of the population," he said.
"Those are significant figures and they raise important questions, including about intergenerational equity."
Some other OECD governments, with more precarious public finances now, were raising their pension entitlement ages and reducing public service pensions.
"But New Zealand’s relatively benign starting position is just that, a benign starting position," Makhlouf said.
Better, but still trending up
Treasury's projections showed spending would quickly overwhelm income and New Zealand's benign starting position.
"Our problem in the long term is the same as other countries’ and that is that our government’s debt curve is projected to be on an upward trend at the end of the projection period, when what we require is for a levelling off or a decline," he said.
Treasury wanted to foster public debate about the choices the public would have to make, including likely tax changes if no changes were made to spending.
The latest projection update suggested the tax to GDP ratio would have to rise by a little over 2%, by possibly either a 3.5 percentage point rise in personal tax or a 4.2 percentage point rise in the GST rate. However, this would reduce the long term growth rate, he said.
"More attractive solutions lie in enhancing our economic growth, which in turn will provide higher living standards to all New Zealanders. With higher incomes, people will be better positioned to cover some of the costs of services they currently receive from the public purse. They will also be able to afford to pay more tax to ensure that those unable to participate in the workforce are still adequately cared for by the State."
Other options to improve the growth rate included enhanced labour productivity, improved labour force participation for over 65s or increased migration, he said.
"But, as we also said in 2009, higher economic growth is not the sole solution to addressing our future fiscal pressures. While lifting economic growth, we also need to slow our spending growth to ensure we live within our means and do not burden future generations of New Zealanders with higher levels of debt they need to finance.
"New Zealanders are in the same boat as every other developed economy on the questions that need to be addressed in the context of the long-term finances of government. The hard questions confronting us are the same ones in front of all developed societies: how best to adjust to put government finances onto a sustainable footing over the long term.
"A projection for net debt of around 100% of GDP may be a less unnerving headline than a projection for over 200% of GDP, but what matters is not individual numbers but the direction of the Crown’s debt position. If the direction is upwards and deficits are set to continue, then it is only a matter of time until a 100% net debt position spirals out to a 200% ratio to GDP.
"The Treasury’s work in this area since 2006 consistently informs us that, if you project historic trends in spending into the future, then the projections for the Crown’s debt curve is headed upwards, meaning that growing debt financing costs ensures that net debt will continue to grow at an accelerating rate."
Reform options
Some options for reform included:
* changing the indexation of the taxpayer-funded pension;
* means testing of New Zealand Superannuation;
* more KiwiSaver-like products in providing retirement income.
"Governments have the capacity to manage the fiscal position over time. It will involve change and choices. The principles we advocated last year still apply: make early change, keep debt under control, focus on outcomes and growth, encourage workforce participation, keep spending under control and focus on public sector productivity."
Here is the full speech attached.
112 Comments
Freeze current pension at
Freeze current pension at current age, any future increases to only kick in as "second step" five years after current age.
"Treasury released its long
"Treasury released its long term fiscal outlook in 2009 in the depths of the Global Financial Crisis, but since then the New Zealand budget deficit outlook has improved and the global growth outlook has improved." Why have they suddenly improved so much? It is simply as a result of the May budget & reforms? It'd be nice if the projection showed a surplus rather than debt actually (day-dreaming).
"New Zealand was transitioning from a high fertility/high mortality state to a low fertility/low mortality state. By 2060 New Zealand was expected to have four people aged 65 years and over for every 10 New Zealanders of working age between 15 and 64. That is up from a ratio of two to 10 today." Is this saying we should in fact have more children? I was under the impression that having babies was considered irresponsible these days.
We have had our first, he's
We have had our first, he's just turned one. Having a child and getting by in this country is almost impossible. Just look at the cuts in the last budget - it's like a war on families in this country, unless you're on the DPB of course!
Agreed (mine are 1, 3, 4 and
Agreed (mine are 1, 3, 4 and 5). I think the problem is not so much the cost of the children though but the loss of income that often goes with having them. There are 3 options for parents:
1. One parent at home to look after the kids = not enough money.
2. Children in daycare so both parents can keep working = little point in having kids to have them raised by someone else, and often the cost of childcare means people would be paying to go to work (apparently in Wellington the cost per child per day can be in excess of $100, and $80 is the norm. Even in Chch it's around $40 at least).
3. Be creative. Work from home, become self-employed etc.
(We picked 3).
What if we all race out and
What if we all race out and buy more houses --- will that fix the problem?
Collectively, if we buy out
Collectively, if we buy out all property in Indonesia and subsequently triple their rent on mass, we will all be rich I tell ya!
Hopefully the likes of Gates and Buffett don't join a syndicate that buys us out in the same fashion. The Chinese will probably do that first anyway.
You're joikng right ? Buy up
You're joikng right ? Buy up Indonesia .......with over 1000 islands and a massive population ..... New Zealanders dont even have enough money between 4 million Kiwi's to buy up the Crafars now run-down little dairy farms . Frankly , we are broke as a country. My parents left Indonesia becasue of the ethnic issues towards us Chinese- Indonesians , but we are much poorer living safely in New Zealand . You have to make your choices
What about reducing the time
What about reducing the time that young people spend in pre-retirement between 15 and 25? We have bought into the idea that extended high school education followed by one or two university degrees is the key to increased productivity, but the result is actually that young people take 10 years out of the workforce for no measurable benefit.
I think it's great that daycare helpers have masters degrees in child psychology, but my kids seem to get on fine with their grandmother who only has School C. I'm also not sure why the people on the checkout at whitcoulls need a degree in english literature.
If we're going to eek more working years out of our workforce, surely it makes sense to find gainful employment for young people who are desperate for responsibility and reward, rather than making them sit meekly in classes memorising trivia for exams?
Excellent post, Rhys. And it
Excellent post, Rhys. And it will allow worker to work when they are at their physical best. Not at some broken down, financially motivated stage of life. As one who knows; it's suprising how quickly the body goes off!
lol so true!
lol so true!
An interesting idea, but you
An interesting idea, but you assume that there are jobs available to the young adults you are proposing to exclude from the education system. Please bear in mind that NZ currently has a massive youth unemployment problem, with rates north of 25% in the 15-19 yo bracket. See, for example, http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/93009/unemployment-a-scandal. With all these uneducated youth already struggling to find jobs, I fail to see how reducing the number of young adults in schools/universities will lead to a meaningful increase in output in the economy
The suggestion is that the
The suggestion is that the old should work longer - as you correctly point out, all that does is help keep youth out of jobs. In many cases, this results in the youth never getting th appetite for work and becoming life-time benfeciaries.
It also indicates that we have too many working-age people for the jobs which need to be done - a problem that growing the population is not going to fix.
" They will also be able to
" They will also be able to afford to pay more tax to ensure that those unable to participate in the workforce are still adequately cared for by the State." "
I think the word he is looking for is "UNWILLING"to participate in the workforce
"We have bought into the idea
"We have bought into the idea that extended high school education followed by one or two university degrees is the key to increased productivity, but the result is actually that young people take 10 years out of the workforce for no measurable benefit." Errr, sorry but I wouldn't have been able to do my job at 15 without a uni degree. Maybe it'd be suitable for some occupations but not for all.
Also, your kids' grandmother has had previous experience with children that a 15 year old (usually) hasn't. As happy as I'd be to leave my young children with their grandma if she lived close by, I wouldn't leave them with a teen even if you paid me to do it.
That was meant to be a reply
That was meant to be a reply to the 2:40pm post.
And, yes. Horses for courses,
And, yes. Horses for courses, Elley. But my stepson was just wasting his time being forced to go the school at 16. He's a changed , wonderful young adult now with a job he loves; a purpose in life and most importantly, a future.
There are a v. small number
There are a v. small number of jobs that actually require some of the information that is contained in university degrees. (eg. medicine). However a university course is not the only or even the most efficient way for a person to gain information.
What a person of 15 needs most is the opportunity to experience the outcomes of responsibility. The opposite of this is to make them sit as quietly and still as possible and to reward the most obedient.
Aside from places with oil,
Aside from places with oil, the poorest nations are always the least educated nations (and vice-versa).
Correlation does not equal
Correlation does not equal causation. I learned that at university, but still haven't found a use for it ;-).
Italy has taxi drivers with medical degrees, and the teacher aide in my mother's class practised thoracic medicine before he immigrated to NZ.
Education is a shibboleth that is a useful predictor of certain personality types, but the content of the education often has no value in the job for which it is intended.
Education's a good thing, but
Education's a good thing, but it shouldn't be uncritically privileged over non-academic experience and skills, the way it is now. There's a hell of a lot more to education than getting a degree, and a lifetime of curiosity and reading and self-directed learning are arguably more valuable. But HR manager types want everything to be easy and black and white.
The majority of
The majority of tertiary/graduate degrees require self-discipline and willpower, particularly at the masters and doctoral levels.
People develop critical-thinking skills and many other extremely useful attributes for later in life.
Those who most downplay the importance of tertiary education are almost always those without any, because they are unable to understand the value of it.
I am university educated, a
I am university educated, a lot of my friends have masters or doctorates.
Apart from those in medicine, the other masters/doctorates did not and will not contribute in a gainful manner to society or learn things there that will help them later in life.
If I had my time again I would not go to a tertiary institution. They do not teach critical thinking, they teach that one should use theory as a crutch and that there will be a book somewhere with the answer and if there isn't one then the answer is either impossible or worth of 5 years study to work out the answer.
Practicality and common sense are important things and the "blue-collar" workers are just as important to the economy. More importantly, those who don't go to uni are usually not saddled with large debt, are able to start small businesses of their own earlier and by and large end up with more $ than the majority of university attendees.
Apart from those in
Apart from those in medicine, the other masters/doctorates did not and will not contribute in a gainful manner to society or learn things there that will help them later in life.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!
That is one of the stupidest things I have ever read here!
Think about what you just wrote, and how imbecilic it is.
Some alternative thinking
Some alternative thinking from the UK?
"..apprenticeships were now available in non-traditional areas such as finance, the law and sales. "That gives employers more choice and if the person enters the organisation earlier they are contributing more quickly. They have knowledge of the organisation as well as a technical ability – having those all-round employment skills that aren't often on display at graduate intake. The Government has already signalled its support for apprenticeships over other forms of further education..."
There's a lot to be said for
There's a lot to be said for this.I have a friend who started work as a legal executive then went on to get an Honours LLB all the while working, being a mum to 3 kids and assisting a husband who ran his own business. The law firm paid for her study fees on the basis that she was bonded to them for 2 years after graduating. They were aware of her work ethic etc and because she had already worked for them she was more than happy to be bonded.There are companies who support staff to train/study while working. Let's face it in the 'old days' most professions including doctors and nurses were trained on the job and studied at the same time.
Sounds like a great idea. I
Sounds like a great idea. I did my second degree part time over 10 years, and paid for it at full price with my own money. Not surprisingly I spent much more time deciding which papers to do, and took the time to think deeply about the issues that the curriculum touched on.
If you do your degree slowly, you can mix it with life experience, and there's no need for a student loan.
Having said that neither degree has been of any use in my high-tech career.
The justificaiton comes from
The justificaiton comes from the statistics. On average, over a life time the university educated indiviudal will earn X amount more than the non university educated individual. I read recently that in the U.S this dollar amount exceeds one million dollars (over a lifetime). Would be interesting to see the stats for NZ.
Almost all of the world's
Almost all of the world's richest people have a tertiary education.
How many nations where the
How many nations where the population is largely uneducated are wealthy. (Again, excluding the oil-rich places.)
But which comes first? Does
But which comes first? Does access to education lead to wealth, or does wealth make it possible to extend access to education? Or is it a combination of the two?
Poor nations rarely choose
Poor nations rarely choose education over, say, weapon systems. So they remain poor. And poor people generally have little or no access to education, thus they remain poor.
The contributions to a nation's prosperity by educated people is often overlooked or deliberately understated by those who don't believe education spending is justified.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating: throughout human history, national prosperity and education rates have gone hand-in-hand.
Do you mean before or after
Do you mean before or after factoring in sovereign debt?
When a 50 year old senior manager on $200k drives through McDonalds on his way to the airport there's a good chance he has UE or a BA. On the other hand, the person leaning out the window with the fries probably has a business degree and an LLB.
Higher education has traditionally been an activity for the elites of rich countries. It's not what made them rich though.
Countries become rich in many
Countries become rich in many different ways and one of the important being through education driven innovation. No better example than Silicon Valley in the US, and more recently Israel. Believe it or not, the Intel processor based computer that you're using to read this post was designed in Israel and built in Oregon!
The more historically frequent way that nations became (and continue to become) rich is simply by digging wealth out of the ground or by growing wealth on the ground. We in NZ are pretty good at the latter, as are the now rejuvenated banana republics.
Ultimately, the only way to be on an upward productivity curve and correspondingly upward wealth acquisition curve is education driven innovation, because any primary sector has obvious limits on growth. There's only so much wealth to be made through mining until either the demand evaporates or the resources run out. Similarly, there's only so much you can grow or farm before hitting limits in the form of land supply, irrigation and so on. On the other hand, there's theoretically endless productivity gains to be had in the weightless sectors of the economy like biotech, infotech, tourism (to a large extent) etc. provided energy supply is renewable (we have an advantage there in NZ).
As for what a 15 year old needs most, IMHO, is simply to think along the lines of HOW can I create wealth rather than WHAT is a good career (and hence, future) for me. No good career makes one wealthy. Neither does investing in housing (given that everyone else in the country thinks about doing that too). In pursuit of an answer to that HOW question, if tertiary education is necessary then so be it. Otherwise, reliance on one's inherently human capacity for learning and adapting ought to suffice, which is thankfully provided by NZ's public education system by the time of a person's 15th birthday. Lets hope we don't loose that!
Can you please explain what
Can you please explain what you understand to be innovation?
Ignoring the obvious
Ignoring the obvious dictionary definition, I understand innovation in contrasting terms to improvisation. The latter requires little creativity and effort while the former is more akin to an artistic masterpiece. Much pride is to be had from the improvising culture we have in NZ but not as much can be said about us having an innovative culture. But I think it is changing, slowly but surely.
Your understanding of
Your understanding of innovation concerned me because in your post at 4.46pm you used the term 'education driven innovation' twice. You then moved on to 'theoretically endless productivity gains' before ending with a vote of confidence in NZ's public education system delivering by the time students were fifteen.
My understanding of innovation is that it differs from incremental technical advancement. Incremental technical advancement is improving an existing concept or process. To use your terminology, perhaps making it more of an 'artistic masterpiece'.
True innovation involves challenging accepted wisdom and ways of thinking – sometimes even turning them on their heads. As such innovation seldom if ever originates from within well-provided education or research institutes – public ones in particular.
Examples of changes that are not innovation would include: The so called 'financial innovation' of the last ten years; New ways of paying for car parking; New methods of issuing parking tickets; Increasing milk production by feeding more supplements; Improved processes for making cheese or drying milk powder and; Political parties changing to getting their feedback and direction from focus groups and lobbyists rather than party memberships. In each of those cases the underlying concept remains unchanged but the delivery has moved closer to the artistic masterpieces you think we should encourage.
Some of those changes illustrate useful incremental technical improvements, but others we would be better off without. With the latter accepted wisdom needs to be challenged and possibly turned on its head.
Deeply entrained thinking is common – much of it instilled by our education systems. Then reinforced by institutions – government, research and educational being to the fore. This Treasury article represents a great example of conventional neo-classical economic thinking that remains essentially unchanged in 25 years. This statement - indeed most of the Treasury article - would not have been out of place in 1985: 'More attractive solutions lie in enhancing our economic growth, which in turn will provide higher living standards to all New Zealanders.'
That is confirmation bias - something I stressed a few days ago with regards to Lincoln University believing ever increasing milk production was the way to profitability. I again provide the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
This time it is in respect of Treasury’s belief that there exists an attractive solution in enhancing economic growth. Confirmation bias is also known as Tolstoy Syndrome. Tolstoy summarises the condition beautifully in the following two quotes:
‘I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life.’ and
‘The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.’
An "incremental technical
An "incremental technical advancement" is what I was referring to by "improvisation". The analogy of an artistic masterpiece was intended to convey the notion of paradigm shift brought about by an examination of the status quo which is "turned on its head" (as you've put it) or as is more often the case, completely abandoned for something superior and all together different.
I agree that the examples you've given are cases of improvisation and not innovation. There is something primordially disruptive about innovation (and all the works that I understand to be artistic masterpieces). Improvisation is simply a detour to the same destination as originally planned.
I subscribe to the notion of productivity gains being theoretically endless in certain weightless sectors of our economy simply because these sectors require people to exercise their brain cells and not their biceps (the endurance of brain cells is virtually endless compared to that of biceps). Innovation in these sectors firstly require an inductive learning phase for people to acquire a baseline understanding of the inherent complexities. Then comes the examination or questioning phase that ultimately leads to a paradigm shift.
So the basis of my buzz-phrase "education driven innovation" is that education entails learning and acquiring knowledge to the extent of being comfortable with complexity and mystery, while innovation entails examining and questioning that acquired knowledge to the extent that something disruptively new is developed. I think Ernest Rutherford ought to be a good example of what I'm referring to at the level of an individual. It took him hard work and some years to first be comfortable with the mysteries of physics. We all know what he developed with that acquired knowledge.
As for my vote of confidence in the NZ primary and seconday schooling system, it stems from my observation that it has not (as yet) deteriorated to the level of outright indoctrination of the prevailing school of thought. I have repeatedly noticed that our schools overwhelmingly teach children and teenagers to be independent and instill that most important of abilities - the ability to learn. Our universities and polytechs, however, are a different story all together. So I would not rubbish the entire NZ education system, only parts within it.
I missed that you had
I missed that you had replied.
My observations of primary and secondary schooling from 3-15 years ago didn't take me to the same conclusions you draw. Our different conclusions would benefit from a wider range of comment.
I think we agree innovation results from challenges to accepted wisdom and must therefore be an inherently disruptive process.
I don't agree that incremental technical advancement equates to improvisation. Most of humanity's progress is the slow, cumulative outcome of the former, but with relatively rare bursts of significant disruptive change.
I actually like Don Brash'
I actually like Don Brash' idea, which is doing the rounds in newspapers today. The NZ Herald has it here. Rather than a straight up increase of the entitlement age, incentivise people to retire later by proportionately paying more in pension. This is very uncomfortable for me to support a Brash idea since I've virtually laughed at all of his previous ideas (especially the ones in that awful 2025 report, that's the one about catching up with oz).
Anyway, productivity improvement is really the key in my opinion. Lengthening the years spent working and paying taxes has little benefit if the additional years are spent just going through the motions, so to speak. That simply delays the inevitable result and when 2050 rolls around, we'll be seeing the working folks of that era discuss these same issues coming round to bite them in 2100 or earlier.
Does anyone know of a reliable projection of our national productivity charted in the same manner as the crown debt to GDP ratios are projected?
Give all the money to Don and
Give all the money to Don and he can blow it in a single year!
Also, does he actually know his idea is doing the rounds?
Sounds like another police enquiry is on the way!
Notice how the reform options
Notice how the reform options stopped short of chopping in half the civil service pension scheme and made no mention of the Parliament golden handout scheme and didn't go anywhere near suggesting state salaries for executive level old boys club members being cut back. I wonder why!
Wally you forgot the Court
Wally you forgot the Court Judges.
Being a recent university
Being a recent university graduate.
The only skills that I learnt in uni and are now implementing in my job today are skills learnt from MS Word and Excel and also people/communication skills and how to research.
Most of the actual content at uni is utter crap. The process and disclipline to study/get the job done is what you really learn.
That depends upon what you're
That depends upon what you're studying and what job you end up doing. I'd agree if you do Fine Arts, BCom, Philosophy, etc and go into HR for instance
OTOH, if you complete an MSc in Chemistry (say) and get a job as an industrial chemist, then the importance of Powerpointology doesn't come into it much until you're preparing presentations for colloquia or similar things, and even then it's little more than a trivial benefit of your education.
Too many useless office-bound people assume that nothing but paperwork and redtape is of any use in life.
"The only skills that I
"The only skills that I learnt in uni and are now implementing in my job today are skills learnt from MS Word and Excel and also people/communication skills and how to research." Oh dear. What did you study?? Makes me glad I didn't study in NZ! I avoided the debt and learnt useful things (not that I use them all, mind you, but as someone above said, my 5 years as an engineering student sure helped me "develop critical-thinking skills and many other extremely useful attributes for later in life."
Personally, I wouldn't want too many of our doctors, scientists or engineers to be unqualified (especially if I needed a heart-bypass and my surgeon was fresh out of high school). That said, there are indeed many people who'd do better to enter the workforce earlier than waste their time studying for useless degrees.
"and how to research." and so
"and how to research." and so begins the road to innovation...
"increased labour
"increased labour productivity, particularly in government." - Is that an oxymoron?
25% of government's annual
25% of government's annual operating expenditure going out to 13% of the population (the over 65's).... soon to be 40%.
Old people are too costly.
There, I said it.
Yep but if you have kids and
Yep but if you have kids and therefore contribute to "creating" the next generation of people who'll be able to financially support & take care of all these older people, you get labelled as irresponsible. I've always thought that was pretty short-sighted and by the figures in this piece, it looks like we do indeed need more young people in NZ. Yay, someone has eventually realised this country is not overpopulated. Who'd have guessed really?! *back to nappy-changing and feeling better about it too*
Yes, building a nation is
Yes, building a nation is selfish, whereas devoting resources to oneself is not.
And NZ has a real problem
And NZ has a real problem with "the next generation of people who'll be able to financially support and take care of all these older people" ...
... the problem being that the number of children born/living below the poverty line is increasing as a percentage of all children at an alarming rate here. And therefore, in the future we will be relying in the main on a generation of children who have themselves been under privileged in their upbringing. Helen's "closing the gaps" policy got turfed out by populist demand - the same populus that in 10-20 years time will be relying on those who might have benefited from the policy had it been implemented and worked.
And what of the chronically
And what of the chronically sick, the mentally ill, and the handicapped, which are not aged related not to mention the won't work brigade, are all these not equally as costly? So what do you suggest is done with all these inconsiderate people?
Sam, no they are not equally
Sam, no they are not equally as costly. Old folks by far are the biggest percentage takers. As stated above, 25% of expenditure on 13% of the population - and it's getting rapidly worse.
"Old people are too
"Old people are too costly"....oh bloody good show Kate...so they were not too costly when they were young but now is a different matter...well why stop there?...look at the savings to be had from chopping the remaining 87% of the pop from getting any dosh too...afterall they will also grow old and face your axe...save them all the worry and stop the bloody lot.
Wally, in many North American
Wally, in many North American indigenous cultures, I understand that the old and infirm - once they saw themselves as a drain on their tribespeople - waited for the winter season and then walked quitely into the night to die of exposure.
It's not "my axe" - it's nature.
Ἀρχιμή&delta
Ἀρχιμήδης....Kate, was worth 100 thousand plus Greeks even when he was an old git!
Old people are only too
Old people are only too costly if you don't wait until a sale to buy one.
Nature takes it’s
Nature takes it’s course and make all retirement discussions today, useless tomorrow.
That's the problem - we don't
That's the problem - we don't let nature take it's course. Take blood pressure medications. Didn't exist a generation ago. My grandmother - never sick a day in her life - died suddenly and naturally at the age of 74. These days we'd have likely had her on BP meds from age 60 or so, and she might well have lived to well past 90. Her husband, my grandfather, died of a heart attack at the age of 69. It was his second - he survived the first. These days he'd likely have had a value replacement at age 55 and he might have lived to 75, maybe even 80.
My point is, in 20 years when we get to only 10 working age people for every 7 retirees (as it states above we are already 5 retirees for every 10 working age) .... what chance have the workers of being able to afford all these medications and procedures for the old folks?
No sense getting all emotive about it - these are just facts - and we have to start discussing it, for the sake of our grandchildren. Quite simply - they won't be able to afford us otherwise.
That was supposed to read
That was supposed to read valve replacement.
There are many types of
There are many types of people that are too costly Kate. Let's list a few:-
parliamentarians
about 50% of civil servants
the obese
career DPBs
bank economists
tax evading PIs
and the worst - those without a clue about how grow the cake and so they conservatively spend more time discussing slicing and dicing the cake, probably while evading payment of as much tax as they can - far, far too costly.
What about setting an end
What about setting an end date to all pensions, say 30 years from now.
Make kiwi saver compulsory from now on, then you have at least 30 years to earn enough and be done with it?
Keep the pension for the bottom 1% who really need it of course
Can't do that Steve. All
Can't do that Steve. All going well, I'll turn 65 in 30 years' time so it wouldn't suit me at all.
Jokes aside, it seems unavoidable that at some point pensions will be a thing of the past. But I'd think it'd be better to make the end date so that people have the opportunity to prepare for it from the start of their working life, in other words more like 40-45 years from now.
Well, if people died when
Well, if people died when nature would have them, we likely wouldn't have a problem with the level of the pension, particularly given the savings in terms of health costs.
Great idea Kate...you are
Great idea Kate...you are including the children who need life saving surgery at birth and sometimes pre birth...you are right?...I mean otherwise your arguments are just meaningless drivel.
No Wally, that's the whole
No Wally, that's the whole point - you prioritise health funding expenditure to youth.
Here you are Kate...just your
Here you are Kate...just your thing...study hard.. http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/eugenics/2-origins.cfm.
No Wally, I'm of quite the
No Wally, I'm of quite the opposite philosophical persuasion - indeed ethically I dispise such notions - genetics is all about natural diversity and I think we can all benefit socially and morally from nuturing such diversity even if the genetics in a particular individual are defective.
This issue is miles away however from ethical discussion regarding the cost to society of unnaturally prolonging life in the later stages of the human lifespan. I feel you are trying to introduce emotive issues as a means to avoid the fact that aging is a natural process?
How about all the health care
How about all the health care that is devoted to females, in particular expectants and early stage mothers. In the old days, without appropriate meds, eg. BP meds, many more would have died of natural causes and noting that we have more health care consuming females in society, why would letting nature take its course be a problem, Kate?
It's an
It's an ethics/equity consideration - when funds are short should one prioritise medical intervention for those at the beginning, or the end of life?
We can choose as adult individuals to give ourselves increased natural chances to live a longer life - don't smoke, eat a well balanced diet, reduced stress and get plenty of exercise. So, if BP meds, cardiac surgery, insulin etc were not funded by the social medicine system after say, 60 years of age, perhaps individuals would look after themselves better?
I often think about obesity and it's costs going forward, and the number of old/infirm dialysis patients we are likely to have in future. It's simply unaffordable.
You could only treat one
You could only treat one patient Kate. Who will you treat. Patient A is a 25yr old beneficiary who due to obesity has developed diabetes. Smokes, gets no exercise, eats fast foods and has no intention of changing their lifestyle. Patient B is a 61yr old who gets regular exercise, eats healthy food, is a moderate drinker, is involved in a voluntary capacity in community organisations e.g. budget advisory, Citizens Advice, Plunket. Due to genetics Patient B develops BP issues.
You would do better arguing for voluntary euthanasia.
Yes, I'm a supporter of
Yes, I'm a supporter of voluntary euthanasia. I would spend the health dollars on patient A. But additionally, I think that we similarly need to reform the manner in which we pay beneficiaries in cash at present. I think for example, we would be better issuing "benefit debit" type cards which can only be used in stores for a pre-defined range of items for purchase. Each card could be pre-programmed depending on an individual's benefit profile. For example, the card would be swiped prior to any items being checked through the register. No alcohol, no coke/carbonated drinks, no potato chips, no cigarettes, etc. would be able to be purchased. I believe this is how the food stamp programme in the US works.
PS - the benefit debit card
PS - the benefit debit card would not work at McD's, KFC, etc.
PSS - "Genetics" are unlikely
PSS - "Genetics" are unlikely to be the cause of patient Bs blood pressure issues - more likely age is the cause of the hypertension/high blood pressure - it's a natural part of the aging process. I trained as a nurse many decades ago - we used to refer to such expected increases in BP as natural and no cause for concern.
"Arbeit macht sie frei" Kate
"Arbeit macht sie frei" Kate
That's a bit below the belt
That's a bit below the belt mate.
That's just ridiculous, tom.
That's just ridiculous, tom. Eugenics/Hitler's modus operandi was a race based issue - pure evil. Wally already attempted to turn the discussion in that direction - it's totally unrelated.
If you study the health stats
If you study the health stats in NZ Kate you will see that there is a correlation between ethnicity/race and some health issues/diseases. I am not aware that the US food stamp programme as you stated earlier has made any significant changes to the overall health stats of the US. Happy to be corrected on it though.
If mini mouse you mean that
If mini mouse you mean that obesity is more prevalent in Pacific peoplke's than it is in European races in NZ - I think that is more a matter of lifestyle/diet, than genetics. 90-95% of all diabetics are Type 2 - largely arising from lifestyle factors. Genetics may predispose some races more than others but Type 2 can for the most part be prevented and managed through healthy eating/exercise choices.
Lifestyle/diet often =
Lifestyle/diet often = culture Kate. I was referring to various health issues not just obesity and Pacific people are not the only ones in the stats. You cannot expect everyone to agree with your particular view of what constitues healthy eating. Nutritionists and dieticians don't always agree on that. Then there is the French paradox. There were a few 'can and may' in your post above, which shows that even you know there are no clear cut explanations for health problems in all people. Locally a 'Green Prescription' type programme has just been axed - the numbers actually using it (3) couldn't justify the costs. One of those using it said that they wouldn't be continuing with their walking etc now that the programme was being shut down. The only way to force people not to eat fizzy drinks, take aways etc is to take them out of the system. I was recently in Rarotonga - no McDonalds, KFC etc there.
I have worked in health. One of the disturbing trends I saw was the number of young mothers who cannot, and do not want to learn to, cook. They were happy to take their young children to their mothers once a week for the only home cooked meal that they had. If we follow your thinking these grandparents would probably not be alive to feed those children their only decent meal of the week. They would also not be there to take care of those children - the number of grandparents raising grandchildren has increased significantly, and for many children are the only stable influence in their lives.
Watching the debate on tv last night talking about ethics and medicine I doubt that it would be the Doctors (who would be going against their hippocratical oath) who would be the decision makers in who will live and who will die. So who will make that decision? Govt?
I am a supporter of voluntary euthanasia and I expect that in time there will be a rationing of health services, however it won't be made on the lines of everyone of 60 who has a health problem will no longer be cared for by the state, as seems to be advocated by you. But just in case I will keep paying my health insurance. :-)
Culture and genetics are two
Culture and genetics are two different things. We can change culture - we can teach young mothers to cook - we can prevent benefits being used to fund Ciggies, Coke and Happy Meals etc. What someone spending their own money does with their own money is fine by me. But if spending OPM I see it as reasonable to prevent further costly damage to health by restricting purchasing freedoms.
Guess we have to agree to
Guess we have to agree to disagree over DNA influence on health. I take it you have no objection to privately funded healthcare?
No disagreement with
No disagreement with privately funded health care - but that said, not as an alternate to the public health system - rather as an addition to it for those who can afford it. Just like cosmetic surgery - people can choose to have a facelift if they don't want to grow old in appearance naturally - but I wouldn't support other people's money funding facelifts through the public health system.
That's bloody unfair of you
That's bloody unfair of you Kate...think of the MPs who would benefit...and those of us who watch the zoo at question time.
Kate, you worship youth just
Kate, you worship youth just because it is youth, as your preference for patient A over patient B shows. You should recognise that the old have experience which is of great value to society, too.
I agree that there is too much medical intervention - the drugs companies want an assured income so they sponsor research showing that normal blood pressure, cholesterol levels etc. are not 'optimum' levels, so a long-term course of 'treatment' is required for almost everyone.
But they also encourage the spread of deleterious genes through society - cystic fibrosis sufferers used to die before they bred, but now are treated to live and pass the genes on - increasing the incidence and the target market for their treatments.
The old medical joke was that 'infertility is not hereditary' - well, fertility treatment has changed all that. Again, the incidence is increasing and so is the cost of treatment.
If you were truly concerned with balancing the cost and benefits to society, you would look openly at these cases too - as it is, you remind me of 'Animal Farm' - but in you case, it's 'Youth is good - age is bad'.
Quite the opposite, anon - I
Quite the opposite, anon - I don't worship youth - getting old is great - it has wonderful benefits - like grandchildren, less stressful work, more life knowledge/experience, more contentment and more opportunity to make a positive contribution in areas of personal interest. But, as per Freddie Mercury, who wants to live forever - "forever is ours today".
Let's face it, what they're
Let's face it, what they're really saying is "get ready for a tax increase". This will sit on top of the income tax, GST, student load and excise I pay on pretty much everything. Australia is looking mighty fine right about now!
Don't worry about the debt.
Don't worry about the debt. All our public debt are in NZ$. We can print and give it to our creditors and tell them to bugger off. Fresh water going to be the most valuable commodity in the future and we got plenty of it.
Why does New Zealand insist
Why does New Zealand insist of having a pension? Get real and have no pension, just for the losers that cannot save for themselves or have some misfortune to turn them into losers, have a benefit of social loser handout.
Cut the civil service by 80% to be lean and mean, privatise all state assets, including primary schools, 2ndry schools, 3ry institutions, ACC and all prisons, and become a global financial hub.
NZ has so much to offer, and being in a remote location we need to embrace our close neighbours and realise Asia is the place to do business not the tired old world of Europe and North America. Becoming a tax haven and food producer for Asia is the key to return NZ to being a financial success and prosperous country.
"we need to embrace our
"we need to embrace our close neighbours"....good for you Ming....give em a good squeeze!
Statistics NZ.In 1990 8%of
Statistics NZ.In 1990 8%of population had Bachelors or higher,in 2008 21%.The drive to send everyone to a tertiary institution,along the same lines as the UK, has certainly made NZ more competitive!Being an 1980s and 1990s graduate in courses that places were limited,university education in general had a meaning and an outcome in pursuing a career.The educational pathway New Zealand has embarked upon is failing .
It has become an end rather
It has become an end rather than a means. A great place to hide unemployable/unemployed youth!
That's ignorant. For every
That's ignorant. For every slacker at university there's at least a dozen hard-working kids who are bettering themselves and their futures.
This country already places unyielding obstacles in their path as it is.
So many uneducated people are content for New Zealand to be some sh*t-kickers backwater "paradise", where everyone but farmers and CEOs earn mimimum wage, and consider getting drunk and falling asleep in front of the telly every night to be an achievement worthy of great pride.
I'd like to see Treasury run
I'd like to see Treasury run that forecast in a peak oil scenario.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/shop-class-as-soulcraft
Recommend this, especially the book, certainly got me thinking on the whole university education, blue collar/ white collar thing
I agree with Ostrich.
I agree with Ostrich. University education has been massively dumbed down, so that it hardly means anything these days. It is just another business now. I have had graduates who have barely been able to write a coherent paragraph in English. How do they even pass their papers at Uni? Do they get marked with leniency because they are not fluent in English? And the problem is not just with foreign students. Even plenty of the kiwi graduates are dimwitted, you wonder how they got through secondary school let alone Uni.
The current university situation is one big farce.
Yes, courses have been dumbed
Yes, courses have been dumbed down, and yes students are passed that should never have been passed - but that was under the old system of funding, based on the number of 'bums on seats'. The funding has now changed to reflect the fact that a lot of uneducated students have been let through the system with 'C' grades. Hence, as funding has changed to being based on quality of students, limits are being put in place to only let the 'best' (most competent) in.
"a lot of uneducated
"a lot of uneducated students have been let through the system with 'C' grades.".....oh yes...that explains why so many "doctors" are popping up, bum on seat in Parliament!
It's great to see that BBers
It's great to see that BBers - people who received their tertiary education gratis - are claiming that it's too expensive to keep educating people who are paying for their own tertiary education.
And it's great to see others arguing for less education.
New Zealand: forever the land of ignorant hicks.
But most BB'er didn't get
But most BB'er didn't get their tertiary education free. They just plain, didn't get it! We all went out to work after secondary school and earnt a living, as well as got trained on the job. We didn't pass time getting an Arts degree in Mexican Pottery etc.
For a nation it
For a nation it doesn’t make sense to highly educate people at tax- payers costs when not providing accurate jobs in the productive sectors. The excess potential just leaves the country. Ha- what an economy !!!
What about mining the
What about mining the Coromandel If it can make us all rich and sort out our public debt then why not ? Right now the Coromandel is moslty unproductive retirees , layabouts and cannabis dope growing dropouts, and seldom used baches . There are a few farmers and mussel growers , but thats it.
Yeah - mining the Coromandel
Yeah - mining the Coromandel with unproductive retirees and dropouts could be a solution to make us rich – that’s’ it.
You don't need to mine for
You don't need to mine for minerals to get munny...all you need to do is steal it from the peasants.. "The Auckland City Council has a target to raise $12m more in bus lane and parking fines that one councillor says is a "straightforward money grab" to hold down rates".herald.
Maybe if everyone (LAW
Maybe if everyone (LAW breakers) stayed out of the bus lane (as per the local LAW's) they would then not have the revenue they think they need and then HAVE to dig up Great Barrier for the Gold etc.
That's impossible Simpleton,
That's impossible Simpleton, for those turning left must enter the bus lane. The truth is the council involved is thieving from drivers. They could crisscross paint the lane for the last 50 metres but that would bring an end to the easy munny.
Perhaps those who were
Perhaps those who were anti-mining will have a change of heart if the squeeze goes on their pension entitlements. At least the government's back down on National Parks keeps the wealth in the ground for another day. Earnings from mining would be handy when the oldies to earners ratio goes from 2 to 4 out of every 10 people, and mining will also create jobs for graduates, trades people and support industries.
DUMP WFF's and the DPB NOW!
DUMP WFF's and the DPB NOW! save a bundle. Limit the UB to 6 months max and open the entire ACC account to competition. Future Debt problems solved. Socialism is bankrupting the country. (along with corruption)
It must be great to be a
It must be great to be a richy rich trustfund kiddie.
Gerard - you've got a lot of
Gerard - you've got a lot of cogitating ahead of you. All wealth ends up being underwritten by resources - stuff, the real, call it what you will. A virtual economy just doesn't do it.
So, at the end of mining, nothing is worth anything. But it's worse than that..... at the end of easy energy (BAU can only exist at an EROEI above 8, best guess) mining probably doesn't happen either. Probably an overpopulated planet uses whats left to cook, heat, and wage war over the residue.
Wealth, that ain't.
If you're the type who hangs onto dumb statements like Brownlee's "x (3? 7?) hundred years supply" of any finite minable resource, think again.
The Aussie Minister of Energy, back in '09, claimed 300 years of coal resource. Without stating, and sticking to, the rate of extraction at the time, the claim is hogwash. Ignorant hogwash.
Stand on the Moloolaba shore nowadays, and count the coal-ships on the horizon at any one time. Remember the storm that washed a ship ashore at Newcastle? No scribe noted the real story - there were 58 ships waiting in line. That's not shipping, that's a conveyor belt.
We've done the math - aussie peak coal in less than 40 years. At current rates of increase - if it is asked to take up the slack from oil as well.....
The linchpin is energy - no other resource comes to the surface, gets transported or processed, nor is there 'wealth to buy the product, without energy.
Beyond the peak of it, the ability to increase goes with it. If you get to the end (moot point) of it, nothing is worth anything. So many folk take the short-term state they're in, and somehow presume it's a continuum.
Dumb.
Here's a really interesting
Here's a really interesting read:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10660833
The bits that count from that
The bits that count from that article, VW.
"We haven't got the money to put up ourselves because we haven't saved it. " and "They've saved in an unproductive investment like property."