Never met a SAHD who said it was harder than the 9-5..
Politics đłď¸ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
Now you mention it, neither have I, wish I'd been one moreNever met a SAHD who said it was harder than the 9-5..
- Thread starter
- #16,323
Sometimes weekend weâre harder than being at workNever met a SAHD who said it was harder than the 9-5..
Thereâs a reason for workaholics and mancaves
Very true, obesity and COPD seem to take up a great amount of the system.
Attachments
![image-6[1].webp](https://data2.nzwarriors.com/attachments/13/13002-9275463524ec4077c7be2d6dfd1cfd51.jpg?hash=u8Pisoq1P6)
- Thread starter
- #16,326
Doesnât cut it.
Explain WHY the govt is entitled to tax paid wealth/ inheritance of individuals?
I accept tax is paid as economic activity is generated to pay for the roads, schools, infrastructure, etc that has allowed us to earn the income. Thatâs the social contract.
Taking wealth or inheritance has no justification based on the âwhyâ except easy, unearned (based on the social contract) money.
Thatâs how the mafia operate⌠explain the difference.
With this pay equity piece, are female Librarians, for example, saying they aren't being paid the same as male librarians or are they saying that as its a female orientated job (I'm assuming it is) that they have been unfairly held down wage wise and should be getting similar to a male dominated role like a fisheries officer, despite the two being distinctly different jobs? Or both?
The latter. But luckily for us mere mortals, the grievance peddlers themselves have created a handy little "comparator" matrix that justifies this "redistribution" of wages.
I'm just confused as to why they don't open their own private libraries and pay librarians this comparative wage?
(not going off on librarians obv, but the bureaucrats)
In the case of librarians, I don't think it matters whether they are male or female. The disparity isn't there. They are asserting their role is similar or as important as a fisheries officer and should be recompensed as such. Almost as looney as the Greens new budget.
Also, the claims being brought to the tribunal were all public sector and union backed. This is why the cost could be billions to the taxpayer.
Nothing to see here for private employers other than having to compete
So these claims were going to be backdated if accepted?
I'm not sure I am getting the argument here.
For arguments sack, lets assume Librarians get their claim ratified that they should be on the same as fisheries officers. What is the flow on effect from there for other professions. ie: Do Teachers then say 'well, our job is more involved than Librarians, we are qualified and have more responsibility, so comparatively we need a pay rise to make our roles more equitable'?
I donât really get the pay equity debate. Doesnât it all come down to demand supply? If your skill set is in short supply relative to demand then your pay reflects it. Interestingly thereâs industries now where females are earning
pay premiums because of their lower representation in the workforce & demand from clients/customers for there to be more of them employed. I think it all works itself out given time.
pay premiums because of their lower representation in the workforce & demand from clients/customers for there to be more of them employed. I think it all works itself out given time.
You guys should try reading a bit more broadly on the topic rather than the circle jerk of middle aged dudes agreeing with one another that this thread becomes.
Its controversial because
1. National supported the Equal Pay Amendment Act in 2020
2. The changes have been rushed through under urgency in an underhanded way
3. The government have actively prioritised landlords and cigarette companies etc in budgets & are now rolling out these changes that hurt a sector of society struggling to make ends meet, to make a budget balance (Willis denies this, Seymour says it is the case)
4. MPs have just had a pay rise announced.
The optics are terrible
Its controversial because
1. National supported the Equal Pay Amendment Act in 2020
2. The changes have been rushed through under urgency in an underhanded way
3. The government have actively prioritised landlords and cigarette companies etc in budgets & are now rolling out these changes that hurt a sector of society struggling to make ends meet, to make a budget balance (Willis denies this, Seymour says it is the case)
4. MPs have just had a pay rise announced.
The optics are terrible
None of those things have any relation to what we are talking about.
Yeah seems you guys are fixated with one small part of the wider topic that culture war numpties fixate on.
Yes everything does.
Lies, damned lies and political subterfuge
Setting tougher tests for women seeking pay equity was probably never going to be a political winner, but the coalition made things much harder politically by acting in secrecy and with undue urgency.
newsroom.co.nz
This is the Andrea Vance article people are mad about...
Really...?
OPINION: Three decades apart, two female ministers of finance wield the same ideological scalpel, and again, itâs women who bleed.
Ruth Richardson cut benefits to the bone, told single mothers to pull on bootstraps that were frayed thin, and called it reform.
Down the political bloodline is Nicola Willis, reading from the same playbook, just with less threatening language.
(Austerity is now apparently a microaggression against fiscal conservatives, so we have to call it reprioritisation.)
The Government has halted work on multiple pay equity claims, including those for nurses, teachers, midwives and social workers.
These were claims years in the making, part of a slow, grinding process to fix historical underpayment of women in roles undervalued not because of the work, but because of their gender.
Itâs a curious feminist moment, isnât it? Six girlbossesâ Willis, her hype-squad Judith Collins, Erica Stanford, Louise Upston, Nicola Grigg, and Brooke van Velden â all united in a historic act of economic backhanding other women.
Kind of like watching a Lean In seminar hosted by the ghost of Margaret Thatcher.
âWe support women,â they chorused. Just not enough to pay them fairly.
There was so much to choke on.
Willis pretending that this wasnât about digging her out of a hole by filling a hole in her upcoming Budget.
The coalition sisterhood trying to sell us the idea that this is somehow progressive.
And the phalanx of female MPs, a generously-paid, traditionally overvalued trade, shafting the underpaid women doing vital, feminised labour that keeps the country functioning.
Turns out you can have it all. So long as youâre prepared to be a c... to the women who birth your kids, school your offspring and wipe the arse of your elderly parents while you stand on their shoulders to earn your six-figure, taxpayer-funded pay packet.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis.ROBERT KITCHIN / THE POST
Any good feminist recognises a woman in the workplace must be more than excellent, outshining her male colleagues.
So what happened to this lot?
Workplace Relations and Safety Minister van Velden flailed her way through a press conference to announce the rollback, which will also make it harder for women to make claims.
Some of her colleagues call her Brooke GPT. Itâs not clear if thatâs because of her robotic delivery, or because her answers usually come up short.
She couldnât say how many women would be affected by the decision to extinguish the 33 claims in the pipeline until this week.
(Itâs hundreds of thousands. That includes 90,000 teachers and 65,000 care and support workers. The disparity costs many of these women as much as $150 a week.)
She couldnât adequately explain why these changes were both so urgent and cruelly extreme, instead of a more considered approach that would tweak the regime to address any over-complexity or unintended consequences. After all, she claims to have been thinking about it since at least the election.
(Itâs desperation. The Budget is just over two weeks away.)
Van Velden also wouldnât detail the savings from her decision, nonsensically claiming it to be Budget-sensitive. Her government colleagues claim it will save the state âbillionsâ.
Short-term, possibly. Long-term? Thatâs girl math.
By treating gender pay equity as a narrow industrial-relations issue, van Velden has failed to grasp the macroeconomic significance.
The OECD and World Bank consistently report that gender equity in pay and labour-force participation raises GDP. Delaying equity settlements in female-dominated sectors can stunt potential economic growth.
Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden.CHINO BARRETT-LOVIE / STUFF
Itâs already difficult to fill jobs in âwomenâs workâ like aged care, disability support, early childhood education, cleaning, and hospitality. New Zealand faces a shrinking working-age population, and failing to price the work accordingly ainât going to fix that.
Lower female earnings contribute to gender gaps in retirement savings and increased, and expensive, future reliance on the state pension system.
Inflexible labour markets built on low pay and insecure work create deeper economic problems that drag on productivity and innovation.
Over-qualified workers get trapped in these roles, and the economy never captures the full return on its investment in their education and training.
Job insecurity and low pay leads to stress, poor mental health, and sickness. Absenteeism and working while unwell reduces workforce productivity and further strains the health system. Not to mention lost economic output.
It also stifles innovation and reduces mobility and efficiency in the workforce.
Some analysis - perhaps in a regulatory impact statement, or even some public feedback, just saying - might have illuminated some of the known ripple effects of low-wage sectors.
Among the figures thrown about this week, was an estimated $17 billion hit on the public purse from future claims.
But, as the Government points out, it isnât cancelling pay equity settlements. Itâs just a cynical bid to delay the inevitable by restarting the clock, and raising the bar higher.
These are fiscal liabilities that still reflect an existing obligation. In successful cases, they wonât be new costs but will correct historic undervaluation of work â so they are liabilities that already exist in practice, but are just not yet formalised. Unless of course the intention was to make the bar so high, that no future claims would succeed.
Recognising those liabilities improves fiscal clarity instead of tidying systemic unfairness off the books.
Delaying could mean greater legal costs, higher payouts with interest, and risks court-mandated back-pay. Getting on and righting the wrongs now allows the Government to control the timing and structure of payments and budget predictably.
Much has already been made of the political clumsiness.
That National and ACT couldnât get their lines straight on whether the Budget was the motivation for changing the legislation.
The constitutional overreach in forcing changes through under urgency with neither mandate nor consultation.
The political hit that National will take to its dwindling female support base without extracting a price from ACT, who can only benefit. All while delivering a cause to rally and unite the Left.
And then there was the timing: unveiled in the same week billionaires, millionaires and property developers were revealed to be among the largest donors to government parties.
Itâs a bit rich to describe these claims as fiscally unsustainable when the last Budget found billions in tax relief for landlords, property speculators and high earners. Plenty of cash for capital gains, but not for caregivers.
Tough choices, as Nicola Willis keeps reminding us. And what a choice.
Saving money by cancelling justice.
And then selling it by claiming theyâre doing feminism a favour by lighting it on fire and calling it efficiency. Richardson would be proud.
Really...?
OPINION: Three decades apart, two female ministers of finance wield the same ideological scalpel, and again, itâs women who bleed.
Ruth Richardson cut benefits to the bone, told single mothers to pull on bootstraps that were frayed thin, and called it reform.
Down the political bloodline is Nicola Willis, reading from the same playbook, just with less threatening language.
(Austerity is now apparently a microaggression against fiscal conservatives, so we have to call it reprioritisation.)
The Government has halted work on multiple pay equity claims, including those for nurses, teachers, midwives and social workers.
These were claims years in the making, part of a slow, grinding process to fix historical underpayment of women in roles undervalued not because of the work, but because of their gender.
Itâs a curious feminist moment, isnât it? Six girlbossesâ Willis, her hype-squad Judith Collins, Erica Stanford, Louise Upston, Nicola Grigg, and Brooke van Velden â all united in a historic act of economic backhanding other women.
Kind of like watching a Lean In seminar hosted by the ghost of Margaret Thatcher.
âWe support women,â they chorused. Just not enough to pay them fairly.
There was so much to choke on.
Willis pretending that this wasnât about digging her out of a hole by filling a hole in her upcoming Budget.
The coalition sisterhood trying to sell us the idea that this is somehow progressive.
And the phalanx of female MPs, a generously-paid, traditionally overvalued trade, shafting the underpaid women doing vital, feminised labour that keeps the country functioning.
Turns out you can have it all. So long as youâre prepared to be a c... to the women who birth your kids, school your offspring and wipe the arse of your elderly parents while you stand on their shoulders to earn your six-figure, taxpayer-funded pay packet.
Any good feminist recognises a woman in the workplace must be more than excellent, outshining her male colleagues.
So what happened to this lot?
Workplace Relations and Safety Minister van Velden flailed her way through a press conference to announce the rollback, which will also make it harder for women to make claims.
Some of her colleagues call her Brooke GPT. Itâs not clear if thatâs because of her robotic delivery, or because her answers usually come up short.
She couldnât say how many women would be affected by the decision to extinguish the 33 claims in the pipeline until this week.
(Itâs hundreds of thousands. That includes 90,000 teachers and 65,000 care and support workers. The disparity costs many of these women as much as $150 a week.)
She couldnât adequately explain why these changes were both so urgent and cruelly extreme, instead of a more considered approach that would tweak the regime to address any over-complexity or unintended consequences. After all, she claims to have been thinking about it since at least the election.
(Itâs desperation. The Budget is just over two weeks away.)
Van Velden also wouldnât detail the savings from her decision, nonsensically claiming it to be Budget-sensitive. Her government colleagues claim it will save the state âbillionsâ.
Short-term, possibly. Long-term? Thatâs girl math.
By treating gender pay equity as a narrow industrial-relations issue, van Velden has failed to grasp the macroeconomic significance.
The OECD and World Bank consistently report that gender equity in pay and labour-force participation raises GDP. Delaying equity settlements in female-dominated sectors can stunt potential economic growth.
Itâs already difficult to fill jobs in âwomenâs workâ like aged care, disability support, early childhood education, cleaning, and hospitality. New Zealand faces a shrinking working-age population, and failing to price the work accordingly ainât going to fix that.
Lower female earnings contribute to gender gaps in retirement savings and increased, and expensive, future reliance on the state pension system.
Inflexible labour markets built on low pay and insecure work create deeper economic problems that drag on productivity and innovation.
Over-qualified workers get trapped in these roles, and the economy never captures the full return on its investment in their education and training.
Job insecurity and low pay leads to stress, poor mental health, and sickness. Absenteeism and working while unwell reduces workforce productivity and further strains the health system. Not to mention lost economic output.
It also stifles innovation and reduces mobility and efficiency in the workforce.
Some analysis - perhaps in a regulatory impact statement, or even some public feedback, just saying - might have illuminated some of the known ripple effects of low-wage sectors.
Among the figures thrown about this week, was an estimated $17 billion hit on the public purse from future claims.
But, as the Government points out, it isnât cancelling pay equity settlements. Itâs just a cynical bid to delay the inevitable by restarting the clock, and raising the bar higher.
These are fiscal liabilities that still reflect an existing obligation. In successful cases, they wonât be new costs but will correct historic undervaluation of work â so they are liabilities that already exist in practice, but are just not yet formalised. Unless of course the intention was to make the bar so high, that no future claims would succeed.
Recognising those liabilities improves fiscal clarity instead of tidying systemic unfairness off the books.
Delaying could mean greater legal costs, higher payouts with interest, and risks court-mandated back-pay. Getting on and righting the wrongs now allows the Government to control the timing and structure of payments and budget predictably.
Much has already been made of the political clumsiness.
That National and ACT couldnât get their lines straight on whether the Budget was the motivation for changing the legislation.
The constitutional overreach in forcing changes through under urgency with neither mandate nor consultation.
The political hit that National will take to its dwindling female support base without extracting a price from ACT, who can only benefit. All while delivering a cause to rally and unite the Left.
And then there was the timing: unveiled in the same week billionaires, millionaires and property developers were revealed to be among the largest donors to government parties.
Itâs a bit rich to describe these claims as fiscally unsustainable when the last Budget found billions in tax relief for landlords, property speculators and high earners. Plenty of cash for capital gains, but not for caregivers.
Tough choices, as Nicola Willis keeps reminding us. And what a choice.
Saving money by cancelling justice.
And then selling it by claiming theyâre doing feminism a favour by lighting it on fire and calling it efficiency. Richardson would be proud.
yep - that's the one.This is the Andrea Vance article people are mad about...
Really...?
OPINION: Three decades apart, two female ministers of finance wield the same ideological scalpel, and again, itâs women who bleed.
Ruth Richardson cut benefits to the bone, told single mothers to pull on bootstraps that were frayed thin, and called it reform.
Down the political bloodline is Nicola Willis, reading from the same playbook, just with less threatening language.
(Austerity is now apparently a microaggression against fiscal conservatives, so we have to call it reprioritisation.)
The Government has halted work on multiple pay equity claims, including those for nurses, teachers, midwives and social workers.
These were claims years in the making, part of a slow, grinding process to fix historical underpayment of women in roles undervalued not because of the work, but because of their gender.
Itâs a curious feminist moment, isnât it? Six girlbossesâ Willis, her hype-squad Judith Collins, Erica Stanford, Louise Upston, Nicola Grigg, and Brooke van Velden â all united in a historic act of economic backhanding other women.
Kind of like watching a Lean In seminar hosted by the ghost of Margaret Thatcher.
âWe support women,â they chorused. Just not enough to pay them fairly.
There was so much to choke on.
Willis pretending that this wasnât about digging her out of a hole by filling a hole in her upcoming Budget.
The coalition sisterhood trying to sell us the idea that this is somehow progressive.
And the phalanx of female MPs, a generously-paid, traditionally overvalued trade, shafting the underpaid women doing vital, feminised labour that keeps the country functioning.
Turns out you can have it all. So long as youâre prepared to be a c... to the women who birth your kids, school your offspring and wipe the arse of your elderly parents while you stand on their shoulders to earn your six-figure, taxpayer-funded pay packet.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis.ROBERT KITCHIN / THE POST
Any good feminist recognises a woman in the workplace must be more than excellent, outshining her male colleagues.
So what happened to this lot?
Workplace Relations and Safety Minister van Velden flailed her way through a press conference to announce the rollback, which will also make it harder for women to make claims.
Some of her colleagues call her Brooke GPT. Itâs not clear if thatâs because of her robotic delivery, or because her answers usually come up short.
She couldnât say how many women would be affected by the decision to extinguish the 33 claims in the pipeline until this week.
(Itâs hundreds of thousands. That includes 90,000 teachers and 65,000 care and support workers. The disparity costs many of these women as much as $150 a week.)
She couldnât adequately explain why these changes were both so urgent and cruelly extreme, instead of a more considered approach that would tweak the regime to address any over-complexity or unintended consequences. After all, she claims to have been thinking about it since at least the election.
(Itâs desperation. The Budget is just over two weeks away.)
Van Velden also wouldnât detail the savings from her decision, nonsensically claiming it to be Budget-sensitive. Her government colleagues claim it will save the state âbillionsâ.
Short-term, possibly. Long-term? Thatâs girl math.
By treating gender pay equity as a narrow industrial-relations issue, van Velden has failed to grasp the macroeconomic significance.
The OECD and World Bank consistently report that gender equity in pay and labour-force participation raises GDP. Delaying equity settlements in female-dominated sectors can stunt potential economic growth.
Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden.CHINO BARRETT-LOVIE / STUFF
Itâs already difficult to fill jobs in âwomenâs workâ like aged care, disability support, early childhood education, cleaning, and hospitality. New Zealand faces a shrinking working-age population, and failing to price the work accordingly ainât going to fix that.
Lower female earnings contribute to gender gaps in retirement savings and increased, and expensive, future reliance on the state pension system.
Inflexible labour markets built on low pay and insecure work create deeper economic problems that drag on productivity and innovation.
Over-qualified workers get trapped in these roles, and the economy never captures the full return on its investment in their education and training.
Job insecurity and low pay leads to stress, poor mental health, and sickness. Absenteeism and working while unwell reduces workforce productivity and further strains the health system. Not to mention lost economic output.
It also stifles innovation and reduces mobility and efficiency in the workforce.
Some analysis - perhaps in a regulatory impact statement, or even some public feedback, just saying - might have illuminated some of the known ripple effects of low-wage sectors.
Among the figures thrown about this week, was an estimated $17 billion hit on the public purse from future claims.
But, as the Government points out, it isnât cancelling pay equity settlements. Itâs just a cynical bid to delay the inevitable by restarting the clock, and raising the bar higher.
These are fiscal liabilities that still reflect an existing obligation. In successful cases, they wonât be new costs but will correct historic undervaluation of work â so they are liabilities that already exist in practice, but are just not yet formalised. Unless of course the intention was to make the bar so high, that no future claims would succeed.
Recognising those liabilities improves fiscal clarity instead of tidying systemic unfairness off the books.
Delaying could mean greater legal costs, higher payouts with interest, and risks court-mandated back-pay. Getting on and righting the wrongs now allows the Government to control the timing and structure of payments and budget predictably.
Much has already been made of the political clumsiness.
That National and ACT couldnât get their lines straight on whether the Budget was the motivation for changing the legislation.
The constitutional overreach in forcing changes through under urgency with neither mandate nor consultation.
The political hit that National will take to its dwindling female support base without extracting a price from ACT, who can only benefit. All while delivering a cause to rally and unite the Left.
And then there was the timing: unveiled in the same week billionaires, millionaires and property developers were revealed to be among the largest donors to government parties.
Itâs a bit rich to describe these claims as fiscally unsustainable when the last Budget found billions in tax relief for landlords, property speculators and high earners. Plenty of cash for capital gains, but not for caregivers.
Tough choices, as Nicola Willis keeps reminding us. And what a choice.
Saving money by cancelling justice.
And then selling it by claiming theyâre doing feminism a favour by lighting it on fire and calling it efficiency. Richardson would be proud.
On the one hand the writer criticises women in power bringing other women down. On the other hand, she brings women down by being degrading
It shouldn't have gone to print. But to be honest, I'm not upset nor offended. I don't read Stuff anymore but I can see why a lot of people have a problem with her opinion piece
When the media becomes the news, that's when they should just step back and report the news
When the government pushes policy through in secrecy... effecting hundreds and thousands of woman, lies about it, contradict themselves about it - then do a press conference implying they're feminists... thats always going to illicit a strong reaction.
The government are making it the news to avoid the topic.
The article is really quite benign.
I've never seen anyone here get upset at Heather Du Plessi Allan.
I wonder why...
Heather Du Plessis Allen doesn't call female MPs cunts
-
Nobody is reading this thread right now.
