New figures show the number of businesses planning on increasing R&D spending has doubled, but is it because of the impending R&D tax credit policy or NZ’s tight labour market?

Disruptive technologies and a heightened risk to assuming your business model isn't under threat?

Great reason for engineering consultancies to buy new testing hardware, or utilities to buy monitoring equipment.

“The R&D tax incentive will be one form of support amongst many for Kiwi firms to increase their investment in R&D, move further up the value chain and deliver higher wages.”
I agree with the part that R&D lifts productivity in the long run but a generic statement on R&D delivering higher wages is misleading.

Higher productivity gains to the private sector from R&D means higher output with lower inputs, and therefore more cash from business activities left behind for the owners after paying the bills.
Only a small portion of gifted employees end up with higher wages but the larger majority actually risks completely losing out on this deal. Instead of celebrating productivity gains from tech advancement, the government should worry about those who are incapable of upskilling themselves and may be left behind because of this R&D frenzy.

https://knowledge.insead.edu/responsibility/how-the-digital-economy-has…

Pick one:

1. A new employee who:
   • Needs drug-tested before entering the workplace and every Monday thereafter
   • Will likely belong to a union which, if in the Gubmint's Target List, will become a multi-employer collective contract thereby removing your negotiating room, and if not, is likely to be a stroppy participant given the zeitgeist
   • Will receive the minimum wage and Gubmint-determined increments thereto, regardless of your state of business
   • Will require induction, training and other input before becoming productive
   • Will require overheads (ACC, leave, Elfin Safety, clothing and protective gear, coverage of unplanned absence) to the tune of 25-50% of nominal annual wages cost
2. A robot

R and D is needed now, more than ever. But it is to be differentiated from growth, profit and the usual 'givens'.

To get where we have to go - long-term-maintainable society being the only valid goal - means renewable energy,. no resource draw-down and no sink-reduction (sinks are the capacity to absorb/break down our waste/pollution).

That is so far gone from what we are, and the remaining time is already so inadequate, that all hands to the R&D pumps would still leave us behind the 8-ball. For instance, bitumen is made from fossil-fuel. We rcan raise our thinking past the fools who think we can 3-D print anything (but who forget that said printing required feedstock) and ask whether we can replace bitumen? And if we can't, is rail (much less and longer-lived material, potentially less rolling resistance) a valid alternative? Is there a case for a one-rail-up, t'other rail down system between cities?

And so on. But unless you ask the right questions, your R&D may well lead to a stranded asset. I'd be interested to know how much of the increased R&D is aimed at addressing the future - climate change, renewables and the rest.

I work in the R&D world and there has been an uptick in available work over the last few months.

However, it's incredibly subjective as to how people define R&D, so I would be very suspicious of any survey results. For most it should mean "the development or improvement of a product or service". For some it can mean sending Debbie the office girl out on a Word + Excel course on the assumption that she will then come back and magically improve administrative processes and increase productivity.

When the gubmint gives out grants everything is "R&D". A lot of this activity may not be R, may not be D or may not even be viable without the grant.

Immigration NZ should resume their "R&D" work on that computer program that can analyse a range of data to generate a risk profile on every applicant. If I recall correctly they named it something like Microsoft Eggshell.