Random Politics - Page 80

blynk · 27th May 2015, 13:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by pxpx

Post on Kiwiblog re Kiwisaver

of the 2.5 million in KiwiSaver just 62% are making contributions. That’s 1,550,000 people. And of those 1.55 million just 56% are contributing from their wages. That’s 868,000.

And of that 868,000 only a third are doing additional savings, which is 290,000.

So we’ve spent $6 billion and it has led to just 290,000 people actually saving more money. That’s a cost of almost $21,000 per net saver. Now these are ballpark numbers and not entirely accurate, but the overall picture is clear that it is a hugely expensive scheme that has had a modest impact at best on savings.

The last point is a bit of a stretch IMO but it's an interesting analysis nonetheless.

No. There are so many things missing to be able to say that only 290k are saving more money. These are statistics gone bad.

What counts as saving more money? They are saying it is people that are contributing more than they need to?
We dont know how many people werent saving before. So based on the number of "Employee" contrinutions, that 868k people that could be saving more.
And dont forget about the other 868k people that are contributing but not from their wages. How come they are included in contributing more? It appears they do not have a job, but are putting some form of money in.

blynk · 27th May 2015, 13:29

And to also add. If a 20yo signs up and gets the $1000 and retires at 70 (I assume the retirement age will change by then.
If the return on that investment is 7% then that $1000 is $30,000 when they retire.
And assuming that inflation averages 2.5%, then $1000 now is $3500 then.

Thats a pretty big difference. That then means there is 27k less to have to invest in that person when they retire (which we all know is an issue that is going to get worse).

CCS · 27th May 2015, 15:34

$27K ain't shit.

crocos · 27th May 2015, 21:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Is he meaning the employers contribution here? Because I thought that the employer could adjust the employees pay to cover this??

Can and do, yep.

Juju · 28th May 2015, 11:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by blynk

No. There are so many things missing to be able to say that only 290k are saving more money. These are statistics gone bad.

What counts as saving more money? They are saying it is people that are contributing more than they need to?
We dont know how many people werent saving before. So based on the number of "Employee" contrinutions, that 868k people that could be saving more.
And dont forget about the other 868k people that are contributing but not from their wages. How come they are included in contributing more? It appears they do not have a job, but are putting some form of money in.

If I didn't have my 3% going into Kiwisaver, it would be going into my revolving credit, paying off my mortgage.
So in a sense, i'm not 'saving' anything by being in Kiwisaver.
BUT on the flip side my kiwisaver investment thingymajig has returned 10%. so yea, overall I'm winning.

blynk · 28th May 2015, 12:43

Yeah, but the point is the blogger can't just say that its 270k people that are saving and therefore it costs $21kpp.

CCS, if you are a couple, then that 27k (54k) should easily help with year of retirement.
And then if you multiple that over everyone, (lets say 1m people for example), then that is $27b that the government doesnt have to pay in pension.
And how much did that initial cost the government. $1b.

You could of course say that the government could have used that money to pay down debt or not borrow as much, but then all that money will get lost in other things.
I would rather have that money be saved "in the hands" of people rather than in the governments purse.

pxpx · 28th May 2015, 13:00

Heh, according to Wikipedia there are 350k enrolled members under 18 years of age. Interesting.

Lightspeed · 28th May 2015, 14:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

I can't really tell if they're running the country well because being outside the country I only see the external indicators, which are mostly positive. I don't know what it feels like to live in NZ right now.

What are these indicators? And are they things that can be genuinely tied to government policy?

Juju · 29th May 2015, 09:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by blynk

And then if you multiple that over everyone, (lets say 1m people for example), then that is $27b that the government doesnt have to pay in pension.
And how much did that initial cost the government. $1b.

Urm, no. Pension is still paid out irrelevant of your Kiwisaver pay out. It's not means tested.

blynk · 29th May 2015, 13:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juju

Urm, no. Pension is still paid out irrelevant of your Kiwisaver pay out. It's not means tested.

Yeah it is, but it could easily be adjusted for Kiwisaver, and I reckon that within the next 10 years it will be.
That would be 18 years worth of kiwisaver.

And on another note on Kiwisaver
Mass KiwiSaver enrolment on the cards
I would wait till I hear more of a confirmation on this but bloody hell.
Drop the kickstart so they can then enrol everyone.

pxpx · 29th May 2015, 14:34

Remove $1,000 Kickstart payment
Enrol everyone
Reinstate $1,000 kickstart payment

problem?

edit: this makes labours policy of reinstating the $1,000 kickstart much cheaper, and national likes to implement labours policies before them so...

blynk · 29th May 2015, 14:59

It could be a good policy for Labour.
We will reinstate the $1000 kickstart and we will back date it.

pxpx · 29th May 2015, 15:06

Which just provides National with more ammunition along the lines of "labour can't control their spending"

fixed_truth · 29th May 2015, 15:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by blynk

It could be a good policy for Labour.
We will reinstate the $1000 kickstart and we will back date it.

True. I'd be surprised if the 2.5 million kiwis who already got the kickstart will be too worried about younger people entering the work force getting the same kickstart. But you know, with this rock-star economy everyone's gotta tighten their belts . . . . still.

CCS · 29th May 2015, 15:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by blynk

It could be a good policy for Labour.
We will reinstate the $1000 kickstart and we will back date it.

Back date it? Lol.

Lightspeed · 29th May 2015, 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by pxpx

Which just provides National with more ammunition along the lines of "labour can't control their spending"

Yup, National can fire blanks and still hit.

Ab · 29th May 2015, 18:56

"Even if I miss I can't miss"

fixed_truth · 30th May 2015, 15:40

Campbell twice as popular as Henry - TV3 research

Quote:

Extensive polling commissioned by Mediaworks late last year, understood to be when the channel's bosses were weighing the future of the now-departed broadcaster, showed Campbell was picked by 29 per cent of respondents as their most preferred current affairs presenter.

Nothing political here. Nope.

fixed_truth · 1st June 2015, 21:46

CCS · 1st June 2015, 21:59

You forgot the most amusing part:

Andrew Little tied with Winston for preferred PM. RAW HAW HAW HAW!

Ab · 2nd June 2015, 00:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Campbell twice as popular as Henry - TV3 research

Nothing political here. Nope.

I don't see why anyone gives a fuck.

CCS · 2nd June 2015, 00:11

Campbell was in prime time, Henry isn't. Big difference.

fixed_truth · 2nd June 2015, 08:50

I can see why some people give a fuck and I can see why some people don't give a fuck.

I guess time will tell whether or not it was a good move by TV3 executives.

Ab · 2nd June 2015, 12:17

TV3 isn't a public company, so has no obligation to tell anyone other than its owners whether any given move was good or not.

fixed_truth · 2nd June 2015, 12:33

We can always look at the same publicly available viewer data used by TV3 to justify the change.

Ab · 2nd June 2015, 13:26

No, you can't. Because that data is commercially-sensitive information that TV3 has undoubtedly paid a lot of money to get. No media organisation voluntarily shares that shit.

fixed_truth · 2nd June 2015, 16:24

Oh ok. I was assuming that Throng Media's viewing statistics are reliable.

Ab · 2nd June 2015, 16:52

Yeah, but raw viewer numbers don't tell you the numbers that determine whether a show stays or goes, in the same way that raw phone purchase numbers don't tell you that Apple dominates the phone industry. Knowing how many people watched a TV show doesn't tell me how many of those people will respond to an advertisement during that show and on average how much money those people will spend on advertisers' products over what time period.

In commercial TV land it doesn't matter if a show - like Campbell Live for example - has lots of viewers if those viewers are people who don't respond to the advertising during the show.

TV3 is an advertising company, just like Google, and just like when using Google the user is the product not the customer. The advertisers are the customers and TV3 has to make sure it has the right product to attract those customers. Campbell Live viewers might be a low-quality product. Doesn't matter if there's lots of them. A smaller number of viewers, attracted by a different show, but who respond to the ads, are a higher-quality product.

CCS · 2nd June 2015, 23:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Oh ok. I was assuming that Throng Media's viewing statistics are reliable.

I'm sure they're reliable but he's not necessarily analysing them the same way television executives are. They're broken down into demographics - some more useful than other. You could find out how many 5 year olds are watching Campbell Live, but nobody gives a shit because 5 year olds don't buy the shit they see in adverts.

CLs poor ratings aren't a recent phenomenon. It's been ten years and the ratings are just going down.

The other thing is that you want to retain the audience over the evening. But are the type of people who watch CL the sort of people that watch Jono and Ben or Dancing with the Stars?

When the rent-a-crowd was protesting outside TV3 HQ, Guy Williams went out to talk to them. This crazy woman starts ranting that she only turns on the television at 7pm and turns it off at 7.30pm. Hey, it's nice that she's a staunch Campbell Live supporter, but she's not the sort of viewer TV3 wants if she doesn't watch anything else.

Some of this goes back to losing Home and Away. Some people have pooh-poohed the importance of lead-in shows, but they're not TV executives. The execs do place importance on a good lead-in to the news and they want to keep that audience throughout the night. Home and Away went and so did the audience.

fixed_truth · 3rd June 2015, 09:41

Yep the Campbell Live views = poors generalisation is fair enough though it did come across like the decision had already been decided and that the level of disapproval from all viewers wasn't something they had properly anticipated nor took into consideration. Also the way they handled the situation was pretty clumsy like how could they think that releasing their decision the exact moment the budget was released was a good idea? Also, in a controversial situation let's flame the fire by coming out and saying that CLs problem was that it focused too much on social issues like child poverty and charitable fundraising - which from a 'we need viewers that spend $$' perspective is true, but come across as we're only concerned with politically conservative issues, issues that our executives are know to promote.

spigalau · 3rd June 2015, 10:29

Listening to radio on way to work this am. Steven Joyce & Annette King on the air, talking about the $50K doors being installed on L2 at Beehive to separate National & Labour offices. King says they are essential, Joyce replies to the effect "At least we don't have to put them between the various Labour factions, that would cost a bomb..."

made me chuckle....

Lightspeed · 3rd June 2015, 10:31

TV: financed by the art of bilking fools of their money since forever.

Its continued decline and ultimate demise is gratifying to see.

crocos · 3rd June 2015, 11:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

TV: financed by the art of bilking fools of their money since forever.

Hmm. Must be hungry because I read "fools" as "foods" and got confused.

I should probably have some breakfast.

Ab · 3rd June 2015, 12:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Yep the Campbell Live views = poors generalisation is fair enough though it did come across like the decision had already been decided and that the level of disapproval from all viewers wasn't something they had properly anticipated nor took into consideration

Why should they? The butcher cares about what the customer is going to buy. The butcher doesn't need to care about the level of disapproval from the cows.

Lightspeed · 3rd June 2015, 13:02

Except the fence is broken and the cows are bolting. The only ones left will be those too sickly to be of value.

Ab · 3rd June 2015, 15:58

I don't think you've got the hang of this particular metaphor.

Lightspeed · 3rd June 2015, 16:54

Freakin' metaphors.

CCS · 3rd June 2015, 17:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

it did come across like the decision had already been decided

What decision is that? John Campbell's decision not to renew his contract?

Quote:

Also, in a controversial situation let's flame the fire by coming out and saying that CLs problem was that it focused too much on social issues like child poverty and charitable fundraising

I don't think Mediaworks ever said that. That was the media's spin and when it comes to people like John Drinnan, I don't have a lot of faith in what he says.

Lightspeed · 5th June 2015, 11:03

From memory I believe that the police cite resourcing and priorities in recent cases where its been found they haven't sufficiently investigated community violence.

I guess we can see where the resourcing and policies currently lie:
Police seize 6000 cannabis plants in operation

Gee, saved $20m in social harm! Guess that's where the $20m we're blowing on a new flag is coming from.

Lightspeed · 5th June 2015, 11:32

Oh wait, no, looks like National has other things in its sights for that money. Like our social services.

National's quality rationale is that services have grown "topsy" or are "hobby-horses". Uh-huh. That doesn't sound ideology driven at all. /s

27th May 2015, 15:34	#3163
CCS Stunt Pants	$27K ain't shit. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

1st June 2015, 21:59	#3180
CCS Stunt Pants	You forgot the most amusing part: Andrew Little tied with Winston for preferred PM. RAW HAW HAW HAW! __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

2nd June 2015, 00:11	#3182
CCS Stunt Pants	Campbell was in prime time, Henry isn't. Big difference. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

27th May 2015, 13:29	#3162
blynk	And to also add. If a 20yo signs up and gets the $1000 and retires at 70 (I assume the retirement age will change by then. If the return on that investment is 7% then that $1000 is $30,000 when they retire. And assuming that inflation averages 2.5%, then $1000 now is $3500 then. Thats a pretty big difference. That then means there is 27k less to have to invest in that person when they retire (which we all know is an issue that is going to get worse).

28th May 2015, 12:43	#3166
blynk	Yeah, but the point is the blogger can't just say that its 270k people that are saving and therefore it costs $21kpp. CCS, if you are a couple, then that 27k (54k) should easily help with year of retirement. And then if you multiple that over everyone, (lets say 1m people for example), then that is $27b that the government doesnt have to pay in pension. And how much did that initial cost the government. $1b. You could of course say that the government could have used that money to pay down debt or not borrow as much, but then all that money will get lost in other things. I would rather have that money be saved "in the hands" of people rather than in the governments purse.

28th May 2015, 13:00	#3167
pxpx	Heh, according to Wikipedia there are 350k enrolled members under 18 years of age. Interesting.

29th May 2015, 14:34	#3171
pxpx	Remove $1,000 Kickstart payment Enrol everyone Reinstate $1,000 kickstart payment problem? edit: this makes labours policy of reinstating the $1,000 kickstart much cheaper, and national likes to implement labours policies before them so... Last edited by pxpx : 29th May 2015 at 14:35.

29th May 2015, 14:59	#3172
blynk	It could be a good policy for Labour. We will reinstate the $1000 kickstart and we will back date it.

29th May 2015, 15:06	#3173
pxpx	Which just provides National with more ammunition along the lines of "labour can't control their spending"

29th May 2015, 18:56	#3177
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	"Even if I miss I can't miss"

1st June 2015, 21:46	#3179
fixed_truth	__________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. Last edited by fixed_truth : 1st June 2015 at 21:48.

2nd June 2015, 08:50	#3183
fixed_truth	I can see why some people give a fuck and I can see why some people don't give a fuck. I guess time will tell whether or not it was a good move by TV3 executives. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

2nd June 2015, 12:17	#3184
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	TV3 isn't a public company, so has no obligation to tell anyone other than its owners whether any given move was good or not.

2nd June 2015, 12:33	#3185
fixed_truth	We can always look at the same publicly available viewer data used by TV3 to justify the change. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

2nd June 2015, 13:26	#3186
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	No, you can't. Because that data is commercially-sensitive information that TV3 has undoubtedly paid a lot of money to get. No media organisation voluntarily shares that shit.

2nd June 2015, 16:24	#3187
fixed_truth	Oh ok. I was assuming that Throng Media's viewing statistics are reliable. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

2nd June 2015, 16:52	#3188
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	Yeah, but raw viewer numbers don't tell you the numbers that determine whether a show stays or goes, in the same way that raw phone purchase numbers don't tell you that Apple dominates the phone industry. Knowing how many people watched a TV show doesn't tell me how many of those people will respond to an advertisement during that show and on average how much money those people will spend on advertisers' products over what time period. In commercial TV land it doesn't matter if a show - like Campbell Live for example - has lots of viewers if those viewers are people who don't respond to the advertising during the show. TV3 is an advertising company, just like Google, and just like when using Google the user is the product not the customer. The advertisers are the customers and TV3 has to make sure it has the right product to attract those customers. Campbell Live viewers might be a low-quality product. Doesn't matter if there's lots of them. A smaller number of viewers, attracted by a different show, but who respond to the ads, are a higher-quality product.

3rd June 2015, 09:41	#3190
fixed_truth	Yep the Campbell Live views = poors generalisation is fair enough though it did come across like the decision had already been decided and that the level of disapproval from all viewers wasn't something they had properly anticipated nor took into consideration. Also the way they handled the situation was pretty clumsy like how could they think that releasing their decision the exact moment the budget was released was a good idea? Also, in a controversial situation let's flame the fire by coming out and saying that CLs problem was that it focused too much on social issues like child poverty and charitable fundraising - which from a 'we need viewers that spend $$' perspective is true, but come across as we're only concerned with politically conservative issues, issues that our executives are know to promote. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

3rd June 2015, 10:29	#3191
spigalau	Listening to radio on way to work this am. Steven Joyce & Annette King on the air, talking about the $50K doors being installed on L2 at Beehive to separate National & Labour offices. King says they are essential, Joyce replies to the effect "At least we don't have to put them between the various Labour factions, that would cost a bomb..." made me chuckle.... __________________ Spig.

3rd June 2015, 10:31	#3192
Lightspeed	TV: financed by the art of bilking fools of their money since forever. Its continued decline and ultimate demise is gratifying to see. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

3rd June 2015, 13:02	#3195
Lightspeed	Except the fence is broken and the cows are bolting. The only ones left will be those too sickly to be of value. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

3rd June 2015, 15:58	#3196
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	I don't think you've got the hang of this particular metaphor.

3rd June 2015, 16:54	#3197
Lightspeed	Freakin' metaphors. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

5th June 2015, 11:03	#3199
Lightspeed	From memory I believe that the police cite resourcing and priorities in recent cases where its been found they haven't sufficiently investigated community violence. I guess we can see where the resourcing and policies currently lie: Police seize 6000 cannabis plants in operation Gee, saved $20m in social harm! Guess that's where the $20m we're blowing on a new flag is coming from. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

5th June 2015, 11:32	#3200
Lightspeed	Oh wait, no, looks like National has other things in its sights for that money. Like our social services. National's quality rationale is that services have grown "topsy" or are "hobby-horses". Uh-huh. That doesn't sound ideology driven at all. /s __________________ Stay shook. No sook.