When I was a child living in a Lower Hutt state house district, for a period of 2 years in the post-war years we hardly saw our father. Like my mother, he had left school at 12 years of age. For those 2 years he was absent when my sisters and I woke, and not home 4 nights of the week when we went to bed. Why? Because he was employed in an Upper Hutt factory involving a half hour bus trip, working seven days a week and four nights over-time.
In return we lived a spartan existence. So too with our neighbours, all working class folk, including 3 who were carpenters, or in other words; skilled tradesmen. In short wages back then were meagre compared with today.
Two significant things have changed.
First, global trade has massively reduced the costs of everyday goods and technology has similarly played a major cost-reducing role. For someone of my generation, reading the full-page Warehouse advertisements and noting the costs of everyday items is like looking at a fairy story.
These factors enabled substantial wage increases for skilled tradesmen and, house-building being labour intensive has seen its cost compared with low wages yesteryear increase dramatically.
The second reason is hard reality and I’m not taking the mickey.
That is that productivity is dramatically down thanks solely to bloody cell-phone addiction.
I’ve told this story before but it’s worth repeating.
Driving with well-known former Auckland lawyer Geoff Cone about a decade back I made this point and claimed that on any building site at any given time, at least half the workers would be bawling into cell-phones. Geoff accused me of hyperbole.
Then we came across an apartment development in its final stages. Various sub-contractors’ vehicles surrounded it. So I had a bet with Geoff that at least half the workers would be babbling on phones.
We duly entered and counted 20 tradesmen, many self-employed, of whom 19 (I’m not making this up) were slouching against the wall, bawling into phones. If you don’t believe this then walk onto any building site and see for yourself.
My company spends many tens of millions annually on building works (fit-outs, correcting architects design errors etc) and are well familiar with this.
If cell-phones could somehow be dismantled by a government action for a year, theoretically there would be a massive increase in productivity.
But then again the law of unintended consequences would probably come into play, namely a huge shortage of workers as so many of them would end up in psychiatric outfits suffering from extreme withdrawal symptoms.
Sir Bob Jones is a renowned author, columnist , property investor, and former politician, who blogs at No Punches Pulled HERE.
Two significant things have changed.
First, global trade has massively reduced the costs of everyday goods and technology has similarly played a major cost-reducing role. For someone of my generation, reading the full-page Warehouse advertisements and noting the costs of everyday items is like looking at a fairy story.
These factors enabled substantial wage increases for skilled tradesmen and, house-building being labour intensive has seen its cost compared with low wages yesteryear increase dramatically.
The second reason is hard reality and I’m not taking the mickey.
That is that productivity is dramatically down thanks solely to bloody cell-phone addiction.
I’ve told this story before but it’s worth repeating.
Driving with well-known former Auckland lawyer Geoff Cone about a decade back I made this point and claimed that on any building site at any given time, at least half the workers would be bawling into cell-phones. Geoff accused me of hyperbole.
Then we came across an apartment development in its final stages. Various sub-contractors’ vehicles surrounded it. So I had a bet with Geoff that at least half the workers would be babbling on phones.
We duly entered and counted 20 tradesmen, many self-employed, of whom 19 (I’m not making this up) were slouching against the wall, bawling into phones. If you don’t believe this then walk onto any building site and see for yourself.
My company spends many tens of millions annually on building works (fit-outs, correcting architects design errors etc) and are well familiar with this.
If cell-phones could somehow be dismantled by a government action for a year, theoretically there would be a massive increase in productivity.
But then again the law of unintended consequences would probably come into play, namely a huge shortage of workers as so many of them would end up in psychiatric outfits suffering from extreme withdrawal symptoms.
Sir Bob Jones is a renowned author, columnist , property investor, and former politician, who blogs at No Punches Pulled HERE.
2 comments:
Nasty things these cell phones, emails are almost as bad.
It's second-rate communication at best.
Perhaps a third factor is effectively speculated inflation being lumped onto land cost and then consolidated, where land values are almost guessed based on what a completed house "could be worth" on a section nearby.
Real-estate agents seem to say the stupidest things that just make no economic sense but people in mass buy into this with a need to "secure the asset" at any cost, overriding good sense or "value" so the process rolls on with no link to any truly quantifiable increases
Time might have run out for the unjustifiable quotes where time on cellphones can be afforded. These costs have been accepted or passed on the basis of "keeping a job moving" noting costs associated with stalled works. The day of suppliers commanding rates initiatives might also be over, looking at the undertones of large suppliers looking at cutting indents to protect against a slump with locked-in high rates on overstocked lines.
I'm watching this space.
What do you think about this below. slightly off topic but still housing.
It's a real shame we don't have a mechanism to protect our housing market from investment inflating the market to where landlords still expect the tenants to pay the full mortgage amounts, as it would be if tenants had bought themselves. Tenants are limited themselves by the ability to save against the market inflation that outstrips any saving. We have a poor model and wonder why we are failing as a nation
like "bread and butter" this area should be protected for all the damage it does. nationally?
Restricting investment by limiting rents based upon CPI increase would curve a market's future, removing runaway inflation whilst keeping those already invested "happy enough" as they will still make capital gains when sold and "fair" with sustainable with slow increased payments on their current investments.
New investors would not see the market as favorable without putting down a large chunk of change, leaving it to homeowners, halting runaway inflation in this market.
Maybe I'm stupid? seems simple enough overall as we can't leave it to be self-regulate nor crush current investors
ps. I love a good rant, can you tell?
Regards
Reece Burgess
Would contest this assertion but am too busy talking on the 'phone thus do not have the time.
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.