On figures recently supplied by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the correct figure was 30%. A marginally more sophisticated trend analysis reported in the policy paper puts the difference at 23%.
In making these errors, the Minister sought to discredit the Employment Contracts Act 1991. He is trying to justify a return to trade-union-dominated wage negotiation regulations, as advocated by the CTU.
Our 15 July Policy Note, Minister hopelessly ill-informed on labour market statistics, rebutted other aspects of his statistical claims. It also included two charts that showed that New Zealand’s trend rate of labour productivity growth since 1991 has been faster than before 1991, both absolutely and relative to Australia,
In this short policy paper Dr Bryce Wilkinson calculates that New Zealand’s labour productivity growth was 54% below Australian's between 1964 and 1990, much worse than the above 23% margin.
We conclude that “if New Zealanders’ wellbeing were its central concern, the government would be focusing on lifting productivity growth, not impeding flexibility and productivity with its Fair Pay Agreement Bill.
In this short policy paper Dr Bryce Wilkinson calculates that New Zealand’s labour productivity growth was 54% below Australian's between 1964 and 1990, much worse than the above 23% margin.
We conclude that “if New Zealanders’ wellbeing were its central concern, the government would be focusing on lifting productivity growth, not impeding flexibility and productivity with its Fair Pay Agreement Bill.
Dr Bryce Wilkinson is a Senior Fellow at The New Zealand Initiative, Director of Capital Economics, and former Director of the New Zealand Treasury. His articles can be seen HERE.
1 comment:
So River of Filth Wood scores another zero. Surprise!
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.