Green Party promoting more state violence - Example 2

As the next part of my series into how the Greens are pro-violence. There is Sue Bradford’s private member’s bill to compel employers to pay 16 and 17yos the adult minimum wage.

Now the concept of a legal minimum wage in itself is state interference in the actions of individuals. If a person is willing to work for less than the minimum wage, why should an employer be required – under threat of state violence – to pay that person more? This is Nanny State in action once again.

The Green’s argument is that “age discrimination is arbitrary, inequitable and unjustifiable under the principle of equal pay for work of equal value”. Well if only it were as simple as that.

The “value” the Greens are putting on work is arbitrary, inequitable and unjustifiable. Who else, other than the employer and employee can decide what the value is in performing a certain task? The value may be $20 a hour or $1. The employer determine whether the task generates enough wealth to make that worthwhile, and how easy it is to get others to perform the task – unskilled jobs pay little because a lot of people are unskilled. The employee decides whether the time and effort cost in the job is worth the money that is offered for it.

None of this involves force. Now some would argue that you are “forced” to work otherwise you starve, which of course is not “force” it is reality. Human beings will die unless they undertake tasks to find food, or trade value for food. It has nothing to do with force – the world does not owe anyone a living.

16 and 17yos typically face no risk whatsoever of starving or not being able to survive without a job. For them, employment is about gaining some valuable early experience in the workforce (which is a good way to get a CV started) and then to have some surplus money to pay for entertainment, clothes and other lifestyle accessories. Most live off the back of their parents for housing, food, utilities etc.

To say that a 16yo should be paid the same as an 18yo for the same job ignores so many factors that the state has no right to question. The fundamental factor is this- the employer created the job and is offering money (the employer’s money) for performing a duty, often on the employer’s property. The employee can accept or reject this. It is not for Sue Bradford or anyone to interfere in this. Exploitation? Well assuming the 16yo entered into the contract wilfully, it is not exploitation – the contract can be ended, it is not slavery and it is not compulsory. Whereas the creepy concept of equal work for equal pay (assuming some great oracle can determine what equal work means) socialises jobs, makes employment an intimate matter of the state whereby bureaucrats determine what value is put on what people produce.

The argument that "High school students are often required to work long hours in evenings and weekends to support their families, who are themselves often facing the same wage issues." put forward by Young Greens Spokesperson George Darroch is bollocks. "Often required?" since when? Just another socialist unsubstantiated assertion.

The minimum wage for 16 and 17yos should not be increased, it should be abolished. If 16 and 17yos want to work they can choose whether to take a particular job or not – take the experience and the pay, or do something else. The argument that such wages do not reflect the cost of living is irrelevant - the employer doesn't set that, and these jobs are more often than not part time supplements. Should part time employment be banned because it doesn't reflect the cost of living? The claim that 1 in 5 children live in poverty has little to do with lower wages for young people - the people to blame for that poverty are, by and large, the parents who produced the children and did not take steps to ensure they would be looked after.

Nobody owes them a living.

ACT and National should vote against this Bill, as it is not only immoral, but will effectively ban many jobs that exist right now. Many jobs for 16 and 17yos exist only because the employer cannot justify paying them more for the tasks these inexperienced people bring to their jobs. The jobs are valuable short term work experience, which can move onto better pay in the future. The Greens want to destroy these jobs, although they THINK they are simply going to raise the wages in those jobs. The formula is simple- if the jobs do not generate wealth for a business at the adult minimum wage, the jobs will go. If the person doing the job is likely to leave and he or she would be hard to replace, then the employer will pay more to retain that employee. There is no such thing as a right to a job

and why is this an example of state violence? It is using the threat of injunction (with fines or imprisonment to back it up) to prohibit employment contracts below a certain price. There is nothing peaceful about that!

Goodbye London Routemaster

Well everyone, after an awful week after going to Munich for a day, and then getting a virus that had me stuck in bed till yesterday – I am back and enough is getting me angry or excited to start posting regularly again.

In London, the big news last week was the demise of the much loved Routemaster double deck buses. These buses replaced the trolley buses in London from the 1950s, and are one of the symbols of the city. Mayor Ken Livingstone who when elected said you had to be a “ghastly dehumanised moron” to want to get rid of the Routemaster. Well he did it – the remaining Routemasters have been withdrawn from scheduled service, though some retain for tourist routes.

Funnily it was a Labour Transport Secretary in 1967, the leftie nutcase Barbara Castle, who sounded the end to the production of Routemasters by nationalising bus services and subsidising the purchase of rear-engined buses.

Now I’m not one to say the public should subsidise an adequated mode of transport. If private bus companies can run more efficient modern buses, that are cheaper to maintain and operate than the Routemaster then so be it. However, this is not what has happened here. Instead the Mayor mandated the ending of the Routemaster, and he did it because the disability lobby have cried about how inaccessible the Routemaster buses are to people in wheelchairs. The fact that most tube stations are completely inaccessible, and that a subsidised maxi-taxi service for the wheelchair bound does not concern these “human rights activists”. To them, there is a right of everyone to use private property, and if they can’t fit, then make it happen.

"Those who defend the Routemaster should have a long hard think about the impact of their views," said Bert Massie, chairman of the Disability Rights Commission. "Wanting to hang onto a vehicle that many people can't use is based on the principle of segregation - in effect you cut off a large number of people from using one form of transport."

There have been the odd murmurings that Air NZ is breaching the Human Rights Act with its upgraded Boeing 747s, because people in wheelchairs cannot access the new Premium Economy Class cabin which is only located upstairs. The next nonsense will be rental cars with chauffeurs for the blind because “they have the right to independent travel” anything else would be “apartheid” or “segregation”.

I'm sorry, you don't have a right to any product or service - you have the right to offer to purchase a service, if the seller agrees, but you cannot dictate that someone must provide a service for you - regardless

On top of the disability argument (which holds less water with a survey that claimed 81% of disabled people wanted Routemasters retained), is the safety one. People get killed or injured falling off of the back of buses. Well tough! I am all for more stupid people getting killed from being stupid – it removes their chance to breed, and claim more from the rest of us. Every time some idiot walks or drives in front of a train at a level crossing, there are whinges and whines for “something to be done about it”. Something was done, human beings were equipped with brains – when you approach a level crossing, use your brain, if you don’t then you die – if you don’t have enough incentive to stop and look, then why the hell should we all be forced to pay for your incompetence?

So the Routemasters are gone, partly due to a politically correct obsession with people in wheelchairs, partly because of an obsession by the left to wrap people in cotton wool in case they hurt themselves, but also because they are old and not very fuel efficient. If Transport for London abandoned subsidising buses and let the private companies operate the routes and buses they wanted, then we’d know whether Routemasters should be retained. I’ve ridden on them a couple of times, and while they are quaint, by and large they have rough hard suspension and are not that comfortable – but then I don’t find riding by bus to be much fun most of the time for the same reason most public transport isn't much fun - there are lots of other people sharing your space and air!

Transmission Gully advocates defy economics

I noticed Porirua City Council is talking nonsense about the coastal highway route vs. Transmission Gully claiming that a broader economic evaluation was needed. You can see Porirua's submission here. I've read it, and it has the holes of Swiss cheese.

It is nonsense to say the coastal route will take 24 years to complete.

It is nonsense to say there is an "over-emphasis" on cost - whose money is it?

It is nonsense to say the coastal route will destroy tourism assets - find one that anyone in Wellington regards as significant!

It’s rather simple, Transmission Gully isn’t worth it – it is a $1.1 billion investment that returns benefits worth $550 million, and the coastal 4-laning will be worth it eventually, but not yet.

Porirua City Council – which wont for a minute commit any of its ratepayers money to Transmission Gully, is keen to commit other people’s money to it.

It reckons Transmission Gully is affordable if you:

- defer “lower priority road projects”. In fact, lower priority projects don’t get funded ahead of higher priority ones. What this means is defer higher priority, higher quality projects – and to do this you need to defer every single other new roading project in the region for 10 years, such as the proposed Basin Reserve flyover, and any improvements in the Hutt – all projects that return benefits several times their costs. The same time the submission says that all these sorts of projects can still proceed

- toll the Gully (brings in around 10% of the funds and reduces the benefits down to around a third of the costs, because few will pay to use the Gully when the current road isn’t congested );

- securing funds from the National Land Transport Programme (Land Transport NZ is only meant to fund efficient projects, which does not mean projects with benefits half those of costs).

Porirua City would kill the Petone-Grenada link road because it wouldn’t be needed – though Ngauranga Gorge and the Hutt motorway will both still be congested – and Petone-Grenada has the net benefits of Transmission Gully at a quarter of the costs.

If you left the running of highways to the private sector, you’d know whether Transmission Gully is a good idea or not. Mountains of analysis say it’s a dog – and the private sector could try and build it now, nobody is stopping them – it just doesn’t stack up as a road that enough potential users would be willing to pay enough money for, not by a long shot.

Porirua City Council wants to waste taxpayers money and road users money on a project that would mean no other major roading improvements are undertaken in Wellington for 15 years – it wont raise rates from the anticipated increased property values for landowners near the current highway – which shows it wont put its money where its mouth is – its mouth isn’t connected to a brain applying economic rationalism, and should be ignored.

No matter how you hold your mouth, nobody can get beyond this fact.

I don't care about Winston either

I agree with PC - I am not interested in what Winston does every day. Yes it is weird that such an important portfolio as Foreign Affairs is held by a Minister outside Cabinet leading a party that still wants to be seen as the Opposition, even though it is granting confidence and supply to Labour.

That's it. Nothing more interesting so far.

The obsessive reporters who think that every utterance about Winston or everything he does is interesting are WRONG. They remind me of the royal watcher parasites who spend lifetimes reporting on whether Prince X sneezed, who Princess Y gave a blowjob to and whether the Queen likes marmalade or strawberry jam - people with NO lives - and they play right into Winston's hands.

I once sat on a plane next to Winston, a few years ago when there was domestic business class - he shifted to the empty front row after takeoff - obviously fearing sitting next to a single unaccompanied male. Is that exciting news??? I don't think so.

The media hate him, it is so obvious and he knows it. They don't give half the scrutiny to anything Clark or Cullen does. So Winston can simply claim the media hate him, don't treat him fairly, and his supporters can nod their heads and say "yeah the poncy Auckland bastard journos always trying to bring our man down".

The Nats are out for blood, because he was once one of them - and now he wont sleep with them to put them in power - they are jealous of Helen. If Winston supported a Nat led government, they would be defending him, with grating teeth.

Until Winston says something interesting - such as opposing something the government is doing, or is found to have a young gorgeous lover, or punches some reporter in the face - I simply don't care. At best he is doing no harm - at worst he keeps Labour in power, but there is no alternative government.

National has little credibility criticising a man it made into Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer after the first MMP election - Labour and National, political prostitutes ready to sleep with whoever it takes to be in power. Winston knows this, and good on him for exploiting their unprincipled gutter instincts.

Men, kids, planes, fear Part 2

Well the news is that Qantas and Air NZ are not the only airlines adopting this policy. According to an airline forum, British Airways has a policy of not allowing unaccompanied children to be sat next to a male adult (and also not the emergency exit row, or the upper deck of a 747).

That forum also reports one incident aboard a BA flight involving a university lecturer and a young girl, which ended with the girl running to the flight attendants (after the man coaxed her into touching his genitals) and the man was subsequently arrested. Of course, there is as much risk of it happening near the toilets at the back of the plane as well, where people queue and there is little supervision – or the posh pervert could lure children into the cabin type First Class on some Emirates planes. BA apparently had its policy at the time this happened – although the risks of doing anything that isn’t observed on a flight have to be high (unless you’re on a quiet flight at night with a willing companion etc etc).

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Cathay Pacific and United Airlines also have this policy because women “tend to relate more to young kids” (Cathay Pacific) or are “much more maternal” (United).

Well there are umpteen women doing time for how they relate to young kids, and to say women are much more maternal is like saying women are much more lesbian – duh!

Nevertheless I stand by what I said yesterday – if consumers don’t like it, then say so. There are probably many other airlines with a similar policy.

I dare parents to say “I don’t care who you sit my child beside” or for men to say “sit me beside unaccompanied children”. Makes you feel uncomfortable? Why? Do you have the same latent fear that drives others and therefore the airlines to respond to their customers?

A coalition of the left and right have called for the Human Wrongs Commissariat (HWC) to intervene. How convenient! The left loves the HWC as it is Nanny State at its finest – telling consenting adults what they shouldn’t and should do. Of course some on the left (driven by feminism or their own latent fear) think this policy is ok –whereas they would be livid if it discriminated against Maori because Maori are disproportionately convicted for criminal offences. The Green Party motivation is to encourage men to be seen in a positive light, particularly given their very low representation in professions that involving caring for children – a low representation no doubt partly due to the witchhunt against men and their relationships with children that started in the 1980s and is seen in the Peter Ellis case. Radical man-hating feminists have driven this agenda and it is good to see there is a more rational response from the left on this issue. Umpteen false accusations and fears that any men hugging or alone with a child are wanting to fuck them has dissuaded many men from being close to children or being seen or thought of being alone with them – I know this, I have felt exactly the same when left alone with children of friends or neighbours - I worried what they might think, that I wouldn’t be trusted.

I am pleased that Keith Locke and the Greens acknowledge this and want to rectify this ridiculous state of affairs.

The right on the other hand smacks of hypocrisy. Wayne Mapp likes the HWC when he wants to call the bluff of the left. See National, rightfully, loathes the HWC when it engages in much of its nonsense about “equal rights” applying to the relationships between private consenting adults. For example the claim that advertising a “married persons golf tournament” was discriminatory. This claim is nonsense, and the HWC is itself a pointless waste of taxpayers’ money. The National Party should commit to abolishing it, (although it did create it in the late 1970s under Muldoon) , but the National Party is happy for a state politically-correct bureaucracy to act against businesses making a decision based upon what their customers want. Wayne Mapp would loathe the HWC opposing “single’s clubs” or being silent on special funding for Maori businesses.

National is trying for the support of the average man, offended that he is thought to be at higher risk of molesting children than anyone else. The average man is right to be offended, so is Wayne Mapp – but the offence is about a belief held by many people – the airlines reflect that.

So Keith Locke and Wayne Mapp are right to be offended, and wrong to want the state to intervene. The state should not intervene when people are offended by a business decision – this is a matter for people to take up with the airline, not use the force of the state to change it. If the airlines reverse the policy, will it make people feel happier, or will many people still secretly fear their children are placed beside a child molester on planes? I doubt any policy change will change people’s attitudes.

So - why are so many people scared of men with children? Is it rational to be extra-careful, or have we been taken in by years of propaganda that has taken things too far? This airline policy is a symptom only.