thedailyblog--2020-11-08--The American election and the desperate belief in better

The US election didn ’ t deliver the resounding rejection of Trumpism we might have hoped for .
Anti-immigrant nationalism still resonates with many Americans .
The public sentiments embodied by Trump which saw him initially elected as President haven ’ t gone away just because he was a Presidential fool .
The violence and disarray in America ’ s public health system , police force and criminal justice system , violence on the streets and in communities , normalised in American culture , show that racism and intolerance are institutionalised , beyond any Presidential figurehead .
But those institutionalised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American politic who voted for Trump again last week and who threaten to reject the election outcome over coming days .
Even at its resolution , the US election continued to deliver bizarre moments .
From Trump ’ s media conference at the Four Seasons Landscaping Supplies carpark next door to an adult video store and across from a crematorium ( what sort of metaphor is that ? )
, to Kamala Harris and Joe Biden ’ s address to the nation – all dressed in matching black masks , and speaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t that America ?
Trump ’ s Presidency and the election have been black comedy and farce at every turn .
It ’ s a celebrated moment that sees Kamala Harris , the first black woman Vice-President elected , after 92 white men in the Presidential office since 1798 .
It took 131 years for women to be allowed to vote in the United States , and a further 45 years for African Americans to be allowed their right to vote too .
It ’ s about time a black woman had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes in the Sydney Morning Herald that from Barack Obama , to Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter , there has not been a Democratic presidential nominee in over 40 years who has won the White House without the support of black women .
After this election , women will fill a record of ( at least ) 131 of 535 seats in the House and Senate but only 49 of them are women of colour .
So the election of a coloured woman as Vice-President is an achievement indeed .
But it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before American political economy and society offer equality for women more broadly , and for black women in particular .
New Zealand politicians have proudly shared photos of themselves with the then Vice-President , now President-elect Joe Biden from when he visited New Zealand in 2016 .
“ Sleepy Joe ” is no Barak Obama in the rhetorical stakes , he ’ s no Bill Clinton in the charm .
But he ’ s no Donald Trump in the reckless , unhinged hazard to America ’ s reputation and global security .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world , observers have cried , sighed and cheered in relief .
Joe Biden promises to unify , to govern for those who voted for him and those who didn ’ t , to restore the soul of America .
Given the divided American population , and the finely balanced Congress , Biden is wise to seek peace between Republicans and Democrats .
He highlights the challenges of “ The battle to control the virus , the battle to build prosperity , the battle to secure ( family ) healthcare .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out systemic racism… And the battle to save our planet by getting climate change under control ” .
He said , “ Tonight , the whole world is watching America .
And I believe that at our best , America is a beacon for the world .
We will lead not only by the example of our power , but by the power of our example.
” -Let ’ s not forget there ’ s always an American iron fist in any velvet Presidential glove .
Remember when Barak Obama inflamed the imagination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with his claims of ‘ yes we can ’ , and dreams of hope ?
In this election , voters have again endorsed hope , though maybe on a more modest , slightly jaded , scale .
America needs more than a change in Commander in Chief .
It needs more than promises and rhetoric .
It needs more than charm and hope and a black woman Vice-President .
But in the face of the crisis of capitalism , climate change and coronavirus , and after four years of Donald Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in better .

The US election didn’t deliver the resounding rejection of Trumpism we might have hoped for. Anti-immigrant nationalism still resonates with many Americans. The public sentiments embodied by Trump which saw him initially elected as President haven’t gone away just because he was a Presidential fool. The violence and disarray in America’s public health system, police force and criminal justice system, violence on the streets and in communities, normalised in American culture, show that racism and intolerance are institutionalised, beyond any Presidential figurehead. But those institutionalised values also represent a large body of the American politic who voted for Trump again last week and who threaten to reject the election outcome over coming days.
Even at its resolution, the US election continued to deliver bizarre moments. From Trump’s media conference at the Four Seasons Landscaping Supplies carpark next door to an adult video store and across from a crematorium (what sort of metaphor is that?), to Kamala Harris and Joe Biden’s address to the nation – all dressed in matching black masks, and speaking to a crowd socially distanced-by-car. Ain’t that America? Trump’s Presidency and the election have been black comedy and farce at every turn.
It’s a celebrated moment that sees Kamala Harris, the first black woman Vice-President elected, after 92 white men in the Presidential office since 1798. It took 131 years for women to be allowed to vote in the United States, and a further 45 years for African Americans to be allowed their right to vote too. It’s about time a black woman had access to higher office. Farrah Tomazin notes in the Sydney Morning Herald that from Barack Obama, to Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, there has not been a Democratic presidential nominee in over 40 years who has won the White House without the support of black women. After this election, women will fill a record of (at least) 131 of 535 seats in the House and Senate but only 49 of them are women of colour. So the election of a coloured woman as Vice-President is an achievement indeed. But it will take a lot more Kamala Harris’ before American political economy and society offer equality for women more broadly, and for black women in particular.
New Zealand politicians have proudly shared photos of themselves with the then Vice-President, now President-elect Joe Biden from when he visited New Zealand in 2016. “Sleepy Joe” is no Barak Obama in the rhetorical stakes, he’s no Bill Clinton in the charm. But he’s no Donald Trump in the reckless, unhinged hazard to America’s reputation and global security. And with Donald’s defeat, around the world, observers have cried, sighed and cheered in relief.
Joe Biden promises to unify, to govern for those who voted for him and those who didn’t, to restore the soul of America. Given the divided American population, and the finely balanced Congress, Biden is wise to seek peace between Republicans and Democrats. He highlights the challenges of “The battle to control the virus, the battle to build prosperity, the battle to secure (family) healthcare. The battle for racial justice and to root out systemic racism… And the battle to save our planet by getting climate change under control”. He said, “Tonight, the whole world is watching America. And I believe that at our best, America is a beacon for the world. We will lead not only by the example of our power, but by the power of our example.” -Let’s not forget there’s always an American iron fist in any velvet Presidential glove.
Remember when Barak Obama inflamed the imagination of a whole new generation of voters, with his claims of ‘yes we can’, and dreams of hope? In this election, voters have again endorsed hope, though maybe on a more modest, slightly jaded, scale. America needs more than a change in Commander in Chief. It needs more than promises and rhetoric. It needs more than charm and hope and a black woman Vice-President. But in the face of the crisis of capitalism, climate change and coronavirus, and after four years of Donald Trump, the whole world is desperate to believe in better.


thedailyblog--2020-11-08--Dr Liz Gordon: The Covid is spreading like bushfires

For obvious reasons , certain international events ( I am not talking rugby here ) have trumped the pandemic ( forgive me for bad pun ) over the past week .
As every writer in the world seems to have felt it necessary to express their opinions on these events over the past couple of days , I won ’ t bother .
Except to say , in the new post-Trumpian language of moderation and consensus , that I am very pleased and slightly apprehensive about the next few weeks .
So having got that out of the way , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urgent attention to the galloping pandemic ?
About two weeks ago , I wrote that the daily tally of known cases internationally hit a new high of 444,000 .
I then mentioned it had gone up to over 500,000 .
As of yesterday , these records had been smashed by a daily tally of 642,000 .
At the current rate it will soon be a million a day .
Tomorrow , the number of reported global cases will reach 50 million .
In the USA , in two day ’ s time the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rising by 127,000 yesterday ( about 85 new cases a minute ) .
A thousand people per day are dying in the USA from the Covid .
Only in China , it seems , plus Taiwan , New Zealand and a few other countries , is there the will and the means to battle the pandemic .
The rest of the world seems to have almost given up .
In the first phase , February to May , most countries practiced mitigation strategies such as lockdown and social distancing , reinforced by public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but temporarily .
Looking back , I think that we now have to consider this period the phony war .
While it seemed at the time that cases were raging , and there were many deaths , the numbers have been dwarfed already by the second wave .
From May onwards , in what might be called the interregnum , many countries dithered , argued and protested against government lockdowns , and many governments took the view that continuing economic activity was crucial .
During this period , we saw surges in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Brazil and increasingly in India and other countries that were less affected at first .
Now the world is heavily into phase two , which might really be called the ‘ real ’ phase .
The petit pandemic has been followed by its full-force successor .
As noted above , the US number are terrifying .
Europe is in huge trouble as numbers surge with the winter .
In the UK , there is now a full lockdown , although this has worrying cracks such as schools and tertiary institutions still being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown in scheduled to end on 2 December , which is hardly enough time to get the numbers down .
It might provide a Christmas respite , but numbers are set to surge again in January .
We will find out in the next 3-4 months what history will eventually say about this pandemic .
At best , the books might read “ 2 million people died , before an effective vaccine was able to slow and eventually stop the Covid 19 pandemic ” .
If the vaccines are not as effective as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manufactured in large enough numbers , or countries are held to financial ransom , things will get much worse than this .
We are one of the countries that has shown that clear messages , stringent lockdowns , excellent tracking and tracing , good quality scientific advice , a ‘ swiss cheese ’ model of multiple shields and so can eliminate the virus and continue to be effective .
We have followed scientific advice which was just not available to our ancestors .
We have mostly shown patience and endurance .
Why can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried and true methods ?
We know that they would work .
But confusion , fear of economic loss , political confusion , lack of leadership and a simple failure to apply and support what is needed has caused thousands to needlessly die .
Humans now know how to contain a novel virus , but whether that knowledge will be applied to save the human race in the future remains to be seen .
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister , with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She usually blogs on justice , social welfare and education topics .

The second wave
For obvious reasons, certain international events (I am not talking rugby here) have trumped the pandemic (forgive me for bad pun) over the past week. As every writer in the world seems to have felt it necessary to express their opinions on these events over the past couple of days, I won’t bother. Except to say, in the new post-Trumpian language of moderation and consensus, that I am very pleased and slightly apprehensive about the next few weeks.
So having got that out of the way, can we please once again turn our urgent attention to the galloping pandemic? About two weeks ago, I wrote that the daily tally of known cases internationally hit a new high of 444,000. I then mentioned it had gone up to over 500,000. As of yesterday, these records had been smashed by a daily tally of 642,000. At the current rate it will soon be a million a day.
Tomorrow, the number of reported global cases will reach 50 million. In the USA, in two day’s time the case tally will be 10 million, rising by 127,000 yesterday (about 85 new cases a minute). A thousand people per day are dying in the USA from the Covid.
Only in China, it seems, plus Taiwan, New Zealand and a few other countries, is there the will and the means to battle the pandemic. The rest of the world seems to have almost given up. In the first phase, February to May, most countries practiced mitigation strategies such as lockdown and social distancing, reinforced by public health messaging, which worked well, but temporarily.
Looking back, I think that we now have to consider this period the phony war. While it seemed at the time that cases were raging, and there were many deaths, the numbers have been dwarfed already by the second wave.
From May onwards, in what might be called the interregnum, many countries dithered, argued and protested against government lockdowns, and many governments took the view that continuing economic activity was crucial. During this period, we saw surges in the USA (almost a second wave), Brazil and increasingly in India and other countries that were less affected at first.
Now the world is heavily into phase two, which might really be called the ‘real’ phase. The petit pandemic has been followed by its full-force successor. As noted above, the US number are terrifying. Europe is in huge trouble as numbers surge with the winter. In the UK, there is now a full lockdown, although this has worrying cracks such as schools and tertiary institutions still being open. Also, England’s lockdown in scheduled to end on 2 December, which is hardly enough time to get the numbers down. It might provide a Christmas respite, but numbers are set to surge again in January.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
We will find out in the next 3-4 months what history will eventually say about this pandemic. At best, the books might read “2 million people died, before an effective vaccine was able to slow and eventually stop the Covid 19 pandemic”.
If the vaccines are not as effective as hoped, or they cannot be manufactured in large enough numbers, or countries are held to financial ransom, things will get much worse than this.
We are one of the countries that has shown that clear messages, stringent lockdowns, excellent tracking and tracing, good quality scientific advice, a ‘swiss cheese’ model of multiple shields and so can eliminate the virus and continue to be effective. We have followed scientific advice which was just not available to our ancestors. We have mostly shown patience and endurance.
Why can’t other countries use the same tried and true methods? We know that they would work. But confusion, fear of economic loss, political confusion, lack of leadership and a simple failure to apply and support what is needed has caused thousands to needlessly die. Humans now know how to contain a novel virus, but whether that knowledge will be applied to save the human race in the future remains to be seen.
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister, with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society. She usually blogs on justice, social welfare and education topics.


Revolution Postponed

THE THIRD AMERICAN REVOLUTION has been postponed , but it has not been cancelled .
With the American news media ( Fox News included ! )
calling the Presidential Election for Joe Biden , that part of America which still believes in American democracy is allowing itself “ a brief period of rejoicing ” .
The followers of Donald Trump , sullen and watchful , have yet to accept the judgement of those powerful social forces for whom the news media speaks .
With every day that passes without a clear call-to-arms against the fast-consolidating Biden ascendancy , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full-scale uprising will diminish .
In the words of Shakespeare ’ s Macbeth : “ If it were done when ‘ tis done , then ‘ twere well it were done quickly ” .
For Trump , and Trumpism , delay means death .
That a crushing coup d ’ état was not unleashed the moment the trend toward a Biden victory became clear bears testimony to Trump ’ s signature lack of organisational talent .
While indisputably the master of improvisational political theatre , the President has never demonstrated the slightest ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone write one !
The slow and careful accumulation of the human and material resources necessary to seize the American state has proved , thankfully , well beyond Trump ’ s capacity .
Hence his personal tragedy ’ s rapid descent into farce – as illustrated to perfection in the Veep-like absurdity of the “ Four Seasons ” press conference !
Were Trump and his rapidly shrinking band of courtiers to issue orders to the United States Military , demanding the forcible impoundment of the ballots in Pennsylvania , Arizona and Georgia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be followed .
Nor can Trump rely upon the Supreme Court to pull his electoral irons out of the fire .
The nine justices may not see eye-to-eye on many things , but it ’ s a safe bet that any request to nullify the largest tally of presidential votes in American history would be met with a polite – and unanimous – refusal .
Possession , they say , is nine-tenths of the law ; and right now Biden has what Trump most wants : public acceptance of the “ facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he will be the next President of the United States .
Where does this leave the Third American Revolution ?
The answer , sadly , is stalled .
What should have happened in the 1970s ; what could have happened in 2009 as Capitalism threatened to expire in the death-grip of the Global Financial Crisis ; looks certain to be put off again .
Why ?
Because , once again , just as the American system seemed on the very brink of political catastrophe , it rescued itself .
Think about the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holed-up in the White House , asking himself if he dared to strike down American democracy .
Richard Nixon , in 1974 , was considered so unstable that his Secretary of Defence , James R. Schlesinger , distributed a secret memo to the commanders of the military bases around Washington DC , advising them not to respond to any Presidential order to deploy troops onto the streets of the capital unless it was counter-signed by himself .
It turned out to be unnecessary .
The US system , the US Constitution , ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was supposed to work .
The crisis was averted .
The overwhelming majority of Americans stood back and stood down .
But , not all Americans .
The effective deposition of a sitting President , by putting the rights contained in the First Amendment to the US constitution to effective use , was the last straw for the most reactionary elements of the American ruling-class .
Democracy was out of control .
The rapid post-war expansion of the “ Middle Class ” had raised expectations beyond the capitalist system ’ s capacity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of control .
Blacks , women , minorities of all descriptions , were demanding their place in the sun .
The Third American Revolution : the revolution in which the republican institutions arising out of the First American Revolution ( 1776-1783 ) and the efforts of the Second American Revolution , usually referred to as the Civil War ( 1861-1865 ) , to infuse those institutions with genuine liberty , equality and democracy will finally be vindicated and transformed in a radical re-imagining of American freedom – it simply had to be stopped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the four decades since Watergate have been about : delaying the Third American Revolution .
Using this insight as a key , it is relatively easy to unlock the recent history of the Republican Party .
It ’ s increasingly strident efforts to drive back the gains of African-Americans in the 1960s ; its cynical alliance with the open misogyny and homophobia of fundamentalist Christianity ; its packing of the US judiciary with reactionary judges ; its deliberate debasement of US political culture and discourse : all of it has been about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full revolutionary potential of American democracy manifests itself .
And the Democratic Party ?
It ’ s history , over the past four decades , has been all about convincing both itself , and the American people , that it is not the political vehicle for bringing the Third American Revolution into being – even though anyone who pays the slightest attention to the sort of Americans who are voting for the Democratic Party knows that it must be .
Which is why , in a funny/sad sort of way it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again , Americans will convince themselves that the system , the Constitution , has worked exactly as it should .
Yes , that same Constitution did allow a man like Donald Trump to wield full executive power for four years .
But , it also gave the American people the opportunity to correct their mistake – which they have just done .
So , crisis averted .
Time for everyone to stand back and stand down .
Sleepy Joe and Kamala have got this .
( Are you listening Bernie ?
Do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AOC ? )
Except that the most reactionary elements of the American ruling-class can no more afford to stand back and stand down in 2020 than they could in 1974 .
Forty years on , they have so much more to lose .
In 1972 , when Richard Nixon won his second term in a landslide of historic proportions , the top 1 percent of Americans controlled roughly 10 percent of their country ’ s wealth .
After 40 years of more-or-less constant counter-revolutionary success that share has grown to nearly 30 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican Party , is not about to help Biden “ heal America ’ s soul ” .
On the contrary , it ’ s going to do everything it can to exacerbate the differences within the Democratic Party and , by doing so , break-up the fragile social unity created by Trump ’ s anarchic improv theatre .
Deep down , the forces of reaction will be glad to see him go .
The Republican president they will need to keep the Third American Revolution at bay for another 40 years must @ @ @ @ @ @ @

THE THIRD AMERICAN REVOLUTION has been postponed, but it has not been cancelled. With the American news media (Fox News included!) calling the Presidential Election for Joe Biden, that part of America which still believes in American democracy is allowing itself “a brief period of rejoicing”.
The followers of Donald Trump, sullen and watchful, have yet to accept the judgement of those powerful social forces for whom the news media speaks. With every day that passes without a clear call-to-arms against the fast-consolidating Biden ascendancy, however, the Red Hats’ stomach for a full-scale uprising will diminish. In the words of Shakespeare’s Macbeth: “If it were done when ‘tis done, then ‘twere well it were done quickly”. For Trump, and Trumpism, delay means death.
That a crushing coup d’état was not unleashed the moment the trend toward a Biden victory became clear bears testimony to Trump’s signature lack of organisational talent. While indisputably the master of improvisational political theatre, the President has never demonstrated the slightest ability to stick to a script – let alone write one! The slow and careful accumulation of the human and material resources necessary to seize the American state has proved, thankfully, well beyond Trump’s capacity. Hence his personal tragedy’s rapid descent into farce – as illustrated to perfection in the Veep-like absurdity of the “Four Seasons” press conference!
Were Trump and his rapidly shrinking band of courtiers to issue orders to the United States Military, demanding the forcible impoundment of the ballots in Pennsylvania, Arizona and Georgia, it is now highly unlikely that they would be followed. Nor can Trump rely upon the Supreme Court to pull his electoral irons out of the fire. The nine justices may not see eye-to-eye on many things, but it’s a safe bet that any request to nullify the largest tally of presidential votes in American history would be met with a polite – and unanimous – refusal.
Possession, they say, is nine-tenths of the law; and right now Biden has what Trump most wants: public acceptance of the “facts on the ground”. Confirmation that he will be the next President of the United States.
Where does this leave the Third American Revolution? The answer, sadly, is stalled. What should have happened in the 1970s; what could have happened in 2009 as Capitalism threatened to expire in the death-grip of the Global Financial Crisis; looks certain to be put off again. Why? Because, once again, just as the American system seemed on the very brink of political catastrophe, it rescued itself.
Think about the last time a malignant, mentally-ill President was holed-up in the White House, asking himself if he dared to strike down American democracy. Richard Nixon, in 1974, was considered so unstable that his Secretary of Defence, James R. Schlesinger, distributed a secret memo to the commanders of the military bases around Washington DC, advising them not to respond to any Presidential order to deploy troops onto the streets of the capital unless it was counter-signed by himself. It turned out to be unnecessary. The US system, the US Constitution, ended up working in precisely the way it was supposed to work. The crisis was averted. The overwhelming majority of Americans stood back and stood down.
But, not all Americans. The effective deposition of a sitting President, by putting the rights contained in the First Amendment to the US constitution to effective use, was the last straw for the most reactionary elements of the American ruling-class. Democracy was out of control. The rapid post-war expansion of the “Middle Class” had raised expectations beyond the capitalist system’s capacity to satisfy them. Organised labour was out of control. Blacks, women, minorities of all descriptions, were demanding their place in the sun. The Third American Revolution: the revolution in which the republican institutions arising out of the First American Revolution (1776-1783) and the efforts of the Second American Revolution, usually referred to as the Civil War (1861-1865), to infuse those institutions with genuine liberty, equality and democracy will finally be vindicated and transformed in a radical re-imagining of American freedom – it simply had to be stopped.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
In their essence, this is what the four decades since Watergate have been about: delaying the Third American Revolution. Using this insight as a key, it is relatively easy to unlock the recent history of the Republican Party. It’s increasingly strident efforts to drive back the gains of African-Americans in the 1960s; its cynical alliance with the open misogyny and homophobia of fundamentalist Christianity; its packing of the US judiciary with reactionary judges; its deliberate debasement of US political culture and discourse: all of it has been about putting off the evil day when the full revolutionary potential of American democracy manifests itself.
And the Democratic Party? It’s history, over the past four decades, has been all about convincing both itself, and the American people, that it is not the political vehicle for bringing the Third American Revolution into being – even though anyone who pays the slightest attention to the sort of Americans who are voting for the Democratic Party knows that it must be.
Which is why, in a funny/sad sort of way it’s a pity that Biden won. Once again, Americans will convince themselves that the system, the Constitution, has worked exactly as it should. Yes, that same Constitution did allow a man like Donald Trump to wield full executive power for four years. But, it also gave the American people the opportunity to correct their mistake – which they have just done. So, crisis averted. Time for everyone to stand back and stand down. Sleepy Joe and Kamala have got this. (Are you listening Bernie? Do you hear what we’re saying, AOC?)
Except that the most reactionary elements of the American ruling-class can no more afford to stand back and stand down in 2020 than they could in 1974. Forty years on, they have so much more to lose. In 1972, when Richard Nixon won his second term in a landslide of historic proportions, the top 1 percent of Americans controlled roughly 10 percent of their country’s wealth. After 40 years of more-or-less constant counter-revolutionary success that share has grown to nearly 30 percent!
Their shield and their sword, the Republican Party, is not about to help Biden “heal America’s soul”. On the contrary, it’s going to do everything it can to exacerbate the differences within the Democratic Party and, by doing so, break-up the fragile social unity created by Trump’s anarchic improv theatre.
Deep down, the forces of reaction will be glad to see him go. The Republican president they will need to keep the Third American Revolution at bay for another 40 years must be made of much sterner stuff.


thedailyblog--2020-11-11--Thousands sign petition for a “Pathways to residency”

In just a few days thousands of Kiwis have signed a petition to give migrants stuck in New Zealand who had made New Zealand their home a pathway to residency .
What follows is a short background paper on how the crisis for migrant workers was created and what the humane solution is .
How the crisis for migrant workers was created New Zealand has trebled the number of workers in the country on temporary work visas over the last 15-20 years .
There are now at least 250,000 workers here on temporary work or student visas comprising around 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now depend on these workers .
Each year , around 250,000 new temporary visas are issued to replace those leaving .
New Zealand has traditionally needed around 40,000 new permanent residents each year to replace the loss of people overseas – primarily to higher-paying jobs in Australia .
As a consequence , one in four New Zealand-born Kiwis now live abroad and one in four resident Kiwis are foreign-born .
How the promise of permanent residency was used to entice migrants The chance of getting permanent residency is the dream that is used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their luck in New Zealand .
On average around only one in five are able to do so .
New Zealand developed an export education system with promises of residency as part of this process .
Today there are over 100,000 fee-paying students – making up 15 % of all tertiary students who are paying between $ 20,000 and $ 50,000 a year for their undergraduate courses .
Many schools in upper-class neighbourhoods have also become dependent on foreign fee-paying students .
The desperate desire of many of these students and workers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employers , educational institutions , and the government to boost their incomes .
Many work visas are also tied to particular employers .
This has been a recipe for an explosion of cases of migrant exploitation .
Migrant workers feel trapped whilst they are hoping to transition to permanent residency .
The situation for those who have come to New Zealand has been made worse by the fact that the government has trebled the number of migrants being given temporary visas of one kind or another whilst keeping the number being transitioned to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The competition for places has dramatically increased as a result .
How the possibility of becoming a resident was reduced after migrants came Successive governments simply kept raising the bar to qualify by increasing the difficulty of gaining a permanent resident visa .
Job categories that previously would qualify a migrant to transition to permanent residency were simply eliminated and the qualifying income and skill levels required were increased without any warning .
Over the last three years , this was made worse as the Labour-NZ First government secretly cut the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % to around 30,000 a year .
Now , even very-skilled and highly paid jobs no longer qualify for residency .
It doesn ’ t make any sense .
For example , we need teachers and nurses , but they no longer qualify .
At the same time , the number of temporary visas granted has continued to grow .
For employers , the ability to continually access more and more temporary workers willing to work for minimum or sub-minimum wages has also suppressed wages in these industries for all workers .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , provide the training needed to hire local workers , or put in the extra effort required to get young people used to a work regime .
The workers and students here on temporary visas were essentially lied to .
They were promised a transition to permanent residency to entice them here , only to have the rules changed on them after they arrived .
It was a terrible betrayal of trust by Immigration NZ on behalf of the New Zealand government .
We now have tens of thousands of people who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families in New Zealand for a decade or more having to renew their “ essential skills ” or “ graduate job search ” visas periodically to do so .
The “ normally resident ” Kiwis who should be able to become residents They are what the government has been calling visa holders who deserve the right to be given a pathway to residency .
Many Pacific workers who came here a decade more ago and also made New Zealand their home but may have overstayed their original visas deserve the same chance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the terrible situation that now exists for vulnerable migrant workers living in our communities .
The Covid-19 crisis gives us a chance to fix the problem we have collectively created .
We can ’ t replace the workers and students now here for the foreseeable future .
In fact , it would be a mistake to return to the over-reliance on temporary work visa holders again in the future .
What “ pathways to residency ” can look like We need to create a new “ pathways to residency visa ” that allows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ migrant workers already here once certain conditions are met .
As an example , this was done for dairy farmworkers in Southland on Essential Skills visas after five years service .
We can choose to use the pathways to residency visas to incentivise people to go to the industries and sectors of the economy that need them without tying them to particular employers which has been proven to lead to super-exploitation .
It makes sense to offer those workers already here pathways to residency if they desire it .

In just a few days thousands of Kiwis have signed a petition to give migrants stuck in New Zealand who had made New Zealand their home a pathway to residency.
Sign the Action Station petition here
What follows is a short background paper on how the crisis for migrant workers was created and what the humane solution is.
How the crisis for migrant workers was created
New Zealand has trebled the number of workers in the country on temporary work visas over the last 15-20 years.
There are now at least 250,000 workers here on temporary work or student visas comprising around 10% of the workforce.
Entire industries now depend on these workers.
Each year, around 250,000 new temporary visas are issued to replace those leaving.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
New Zealand has traditionally needed around 40,000 new permanent residents each year to replace the loss of people overseas – primarily to higher-paying jobs in Australia. As a consequence, one in four New Zealand-born Kiwis now live abroad and one in four resident Kiwis are foreign-born.
How the promise of permanent residency was used to entice migrants
The chance of getting permanent residency is the dream that is used to entice workers and students to try their luck in New Zealand. On average around only one in five are able to do so.
New Zealand developed an export education system with promises of residency as part of this process. Today there are over 100,000 fee-paying students – making up 15% of all tertiary students who are paying between $20,000 and $50,000 a year for their undergraduate courses. Many schools in upper-class neighbourhoods have also become dependent on foreign fee-paying students.
The desperate desire of many of these students and workers to become permanent residents is being exploited by employers, educational institutions, and the government to boost their incomes.
Many work visas are also tied to particular employers. This has been a recipe for an explosion of cases of migrant exploitation. Migrant workers feel trapped whilst they are hoping to transition to permanent residency.
The situation for those who have come to New Zealand has been made worse by the fact that the government has trebled the number of migrants being given temporary visas of one kind or another whilst keeping the number being transitioned to permanent residence more or less the same. The competition for places has dramatically increased as a result.
How the possibility of becoming a resident was reduced after migrants came
Successive governments simply kept raising the bar to qualify by increasing the difficulty of gaining a permanent resident visa. Job categories that previously would qualify a migrant to transition to permanent residency were simply eliminated and the qualifying income and skill levels required were increased without any warning.
Over the last three years, this was made worse as the Labour-NZ First government secretly cut the number of people being given residency by 25% to around 30,000 a year. Now, even very-skilled and highly paid jobs no longer qualify for residency. It doesn’t make any sense. For example, we need teachers and nurses, but they no longer qualify.
At the same time, the number of temporary visas granted has continued to grow.
For employers, the ability to continually access more and more temporary workers willing to work for minimum or sub-minimum wages has also suppressed wages in these industries for all workers. There was never any incentive to raise pay, provide the training needed to hire local workers, or put in the extra effort required to get young people used to a work regime.
The workers and students here on temporary visas were essentially lied to. They were promised a transition to permanent residency to entice them here, only to have the rules changed on them after they arrived. It was a terrible betrayal of trust by Immigration NZ on behalf of the New Zealand government.
We now have tens of thousands of people who have been living, working, and raising families in New Zealand for a decade or more having to renew their “essential skills” or “graduate job search” visas periodically to do so.
The “normally resident” Kiwis who should be able to become residents
They are what the government has been calling “normally resident” visa holders who deserve the right to be given a pathway to residency.
Many Pacific workers who came here a decade more ago and also made New Zealand their home but may have overstayed their original visas deserve the same chance.
We have to collectively take responsibility for the terrible situation that now exists for vulnerable migrant workers living in our communities.
The Covid-19 crisis gives us a chance to fix the problem we have collectively created.
We can’t replace the workers and students now here for the foreseeable future. In fact, it would be a mistake to return to the over-reliance on temporary work visa holders again in the future.
What “pathways to residency” can look like
We need to create a new “pathways to residency visa” that allows the government to guarantee permanent residence to migrant workers already here once certain conditions are met. As an example, this was done for dairy farmworkers in Southland on Essential Skills visas after five years service.
We can choose to use the pathways to residency visas to incentivise people to go to the industries and sectors of the economy that need them without tying them to particular employers which has been proven to lead to super-exploitation.
It makes sense to offer those workers already here pathways to residency if they desire it.


thedailyblog--2020-11-11--Trump’s Pinochet Moment ?

Trump’s Pinochet Moment ?

Something which occurred to me in light of the American Presidential electoral results … is that Trump is having a Pinochet moment .
Now I *don ’ t* mean that he ’ s having dissidents thrown out of helicopters ( much , I am sure , to the chagrin of some of his supporters at present ) .
But rather – that what has happened this past week or so has been akin to the 1988 Chilean vote that was quite literally a referendum on Pinochet .
Now , that vote is interesting – because it seems that Pinochet thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and so did not take the ordinary steps afore its occurrence to suppress , marginalize , and otherwise constrain his opponents – nor to overtly ‘ rig ’ the vote so that he would win by default .
Instead , he basically allowed both sides ( his own , and the ‘ No ’ campaign ) to have something which , while it was not exactly a ‘ level ’ playing field for various reasons ( including the rather ingenious use of ‘ false front ’ organizations to draw votes from the ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ third options ..
Shades of Kanye , perhaps ? )
, was nevertheless the most ‘ open ’ arena which Chile had witnessed for his entire reign .
And was promptly surprised when a ) the ‘ No ’ campaign turned out to be better at actually campaigning and producing decent campaign material than his own side ; b ) that even after “ all he had done for them ” , a majority of Chileans voted to reject him regardless .
Now , the parallels with Trump ought be obvious at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not really ‘ rig ’ the election ( it is an open question whether he actually could have ; standard voter suppression etc .
of course excepted ) – but rather was genuinely surprised to find that a ) his opponents actually *were* reasonably competent at campaigning and outreach ( rather than ‘ Sleepy ’ , one supposes ) ; b ) a majority of Americans actually weren ’ t that keen on letting him have another four years in office despite “ all he had done for them ” .
[ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he had done *to* them ” from the view of the Biden vote is , perhaps , not something he ’ d considered ] This is also – for now – why Trump has not been actively deserving of many of the tropes around playing 14th dimensional underwater strip billiards backgammon .. er .. chess , in pursuit of a clandestinely secured conspiratorial victory which ends democracy in America .
Because it ’ s simply not true .
If it WERE , he wouldn ’ t have lost last week ’ s election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or in tentative electoral college projections .
Instead , he was a man who had bought into his own self-proclaimed narrative – and took at face value ( rather than mask value ) what his own senses and ego were telling him when he found himself amidst stadia and airports filled with his own cheering supporters ( ignoring the obvious ‘ selection bias ’ inherent in the fact these people had been bussed to the venue by his campaign after opting-in by already being well-disposed towards him ) .
Namely , that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted was more of him for another four years ; not another guy in his 70s and a simultaneously ultra-hard-line police state but somehow California ultra-liberal former prosecutor .
Now , buying into your own narrative is a pretty dangerous thing to do in perilous circumstances – as it opens up the possibility that you basically stop engaging seriously with competing perspectives and perceived-unfavourable incoming data-streams .
Which appears to be what Trump then did .
And to be fair , he may have had a bit of a point : the differential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has not been anywhere near as dire as some polling earlier appeared to predict .
However , none of this changes the fact that the result hasn ’ t gone Trump ’ s way – and he ’ s now left scrambling to try and either make a dignified exit , or dig in for Home Alone : White House Edition .
Which , as far as he ’ s concerned , may well prove to be an *entirely* false notion of choice .
I don ’ t know if I place full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent Vanity Fair article , that Trump has reportedly declared he ’ ll literally have to be dragged out kicking and screaming .
But in a metaphorical sense – this seems somewhat apt .
Various Republicans have , after all , recently started openly urging for states to intervene with their Electoral College delegations so as to provide Trump with the votes he needs there that he could not come up with on the ground ; and the Court challenges against those votes in key battleground states are also gearing up apace .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past 36 or so hours – spate of firings of civilian leadership and oversight personnel from the Department of Defence , Pentagon , and intelligence services in order to have them replaced by Trump loyalists , is also interesting for obvious reasons .
However , in the hopefully unlikely event that Trump *does* endeavour to more seriously pursue the Pinochet course of action in 1988 – that is to say , calls in various Generals and other such power-havers and asks for , in effect , the powers to ignore the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pinochet then may prove to be instructive : the Generals , even in a military junta , balked at the request and told Pinochet bluntly that his time was up .
Although this is 2020 ; and even though it would be intriguing to think that American spooks and soldiers had some sort of unflinching loyalty to constitutional governance and democratic norms … well … we ’ ll just have to see what happens , won ’ t we .

Something which occurred to me in light of the American Presidential electoral results … is that Trump is having a Pinochet moment. Now I *don’t* mean that he’s having dissidents thrown out of helicopters (much, I am sure, to the chagrin of some of his supporters at present). But rather – that what has happened this past week or so has been akin to the 1988 Chilean vote that was quite literally a referendum on Pinochet.
Now, that vote is interesting – because it seems that Pinochet thought he would win, fairly handily; and so did not take the ordinary steps afore its occurrence to suppress, marginalize, and otherwise constrain his opponents – nor to overtly ‘rig’ the vote so that he would win by default.
Instead, he basically allowed both sides (his own, and the ‘No’ campaign) to have something which, while it was not exactly a ‘level’ playing field for various reasons (including the rather ingenious use of ‘false front’ organizations to draw votes from the ‘No’ side into effective ‘protest-vote’ third options .. Shades of Kanye, perhaps?), was nevertheless the most ‘open’ arena which Chile had witnessed for his entire reign.
And was promptly surprised when a) the ‘No’ campaign turned out to be better at actually campaigning and producing decent campaign material than his own side ; b) that even after “all he had done for them”, a majority of Chileans voted to reject him regardless.
Now, the parallels with Trump ought be obvious at this point. Insofar as Trump did not really ‘rig’ the election (it is an open question whether he actually could have; standard voter suppression etc. of course excepted) – but rather was genuinely surprised to find that a) his opponents actually *were* reasonably competent at campaigning and outreach (rather than ‘Sleepy’, one supposes); b) a majority of Americans actually weren’t that keen on letting him have another four years in office despite “all he had done for them”. [the fact that it’s “all he had done *to* them” from the view of the Biden vote is, perhaps, not something he’d considered]
This is also – for now – why Trump has not been actively deserving of many of the tropes around playing 14th dimensional underwater strip billiards backgammon .. er .. chess, in pursuit of a clandestinely secured conspiratorial victory which ends democracy in America.
Because it’s simply not true. If it WERE, he wouldn’t have lost last week’s election – likely either in popular vote terms or in tentative electoral college projections.
Instead, he was a man who had bought into his own self-proclaimed narrative – and took at face value (rather than mask value) what his own senses and ego were telling him when he found himself amidst stadia and airports filled with his own cheering supporters (ignoring the obvious ‘selection bias’ inherent in the fact these people had been bussed to the venue by his campaign after opting-in by already being well-disposed towards him). Namely, that this was America, and what America *overwhelmingly* wanted was more of him for another four years; not another guy in his 70s and a simultaneously ultra-hard-line police state but somehow California ultra-liberal former prosecutor.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Now, buying into your own narrative is a pretty dangerous thing to do in perilous circumstances – as it opens up the possibility that you basically stop engaging seriously with competing perspectives and perceived-unfavourable incoming data-streams. Which appears to be what Trump then did.
And to be fair, he may have had a bit of a point: the differential between Pro-Trump and Anti-Trump on Election Night has not been anywhere near as dire as some polling earlier appeared to predict.
However, none of this changes the fact that the result hasn’t gone Trump’s way – and he’s now left scrambling to try and either make a dignified exit, or dig in for Home Alone: White House Edition.
Which, as far as he’s concerned, may well prove to be an *entirely* false notion of choice.
I don’t know if I place full credence in the material alleged in a recent Vanity Fair article, that Trump has reportedly declared he’ll literally have to be dragged out kicking and screaming. But in a metaphorical sense – this seems somewhat apt. Various Republicans have, after all, recently started openly urging for states to intervene with their Electoral College delegations so as to provide Trump with the votes he needs there that he could not come up with on the ground; and the Court challenges against those votes in key battleground states are also gearing up apace.
The recent – as in, over the past 36 or so hours – spate of firings of civilian leadership and oversight personnel from the Department of Defence, Pentagon, and intelligence services in order to have them replaced by Trump loyalists, is also interesting for obvious reasons.
However, in the hopefully unlikely event that Trump *does* endeavour to more seriously pursue the Pinochet course of action in 1988 – that is to say, calls in various Generals and other such power-havers and asks for, in effect, the powers to ignore the election result …
… the fate which befell Pinochet then may prove to be instructive: the Generals, even in a military junta, balked at the request and told Pinochet bluntly that his time was up.
Although this is 2020; and even though it would be intriguing to think that American spooks and soldiers had some sort of unflinching loyalty to constitutional governance and democratic norms … well … we’ll just have to see what happens, won’t we.


thedailyblog--2020-11-12--MUST READ: Jacinda 2.0 is “Licenced to Govern” – But not by, or for, us.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED to Jacinda Ardern ?
What has become of the woman who promised to “ transform ” New Zealand through the “ Politics of Kindness ” ?
Where is the woman who forged a team of five million and coached it through the Covid-19 pandemic ?
Why is the woman who won 50.1 percent of the Party Vote refusing to respond to the needs of the poorest New Zealanders .
What in the Blue Blazers is going on ?
Contrast the present Labour Government ’ s refusal to give the poor a happy Christmas with this little vignette @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shortly after his election as Labour Party leader in 1961 , Arnold Nordmeyer was asked by the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation to recall for its listeners ‘ My Most Memorable Christmas ’ .
He spoke movingly of the first Labour Government ’ s decision , in December 1935 , to advance the equivalent of an extra week ’ s relief payment to all the unemployed as a “ Christmas Bonus ” .
That single act of state generosity , he said , sent ripples of hope and goodwill through thousands of destitute families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christmas , its effects were evident across the whole of New Zealand.
” Alternatively , there ’ s the extraordinary interview conducted by David Frost with New Zealand ’ s newly-elected Prime Minister , Norman Kirk , early in 1973 .
About 3 minutes into the interview Kirk talks about the letter he received from a disabled woman , thanking him for the special Christmas payment he made to all social welfare beneficiaries in December of 1972 , and telling him what the extra money had made possible .
Here ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for her communication skills and for her demonstrations of empathy , but set her performances alongside Kirk ’ s in that interview and the huge gulf that separates the current Labour Government from its predecessor of 1972-75 is immediately apparent .
Yes , the world has become a very different place , and the conduct of centre-left politics has changed dramatically .
But human compassion and political authenticity are just as easy to spot in 2020 as they were in 1973 .
Something has been removed from our political leaders , something important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took it ?
The answer – appropriately enough – lies in the turbulent history of the 1970s .
At the heart of that history was Capitalism ’ s ruthless fightback against what its intellectual leaders regarded as the unwarranted , and increasingly uncontrollable , inflation of democratic expectations .
Capitalism ’ s problem , in a nutshell , was that too many people wanted – and were demanding – too much .
Across the industrialised West , decade after decade of rising prosperity had freed ordinary people , especially young people , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Having secured their freedom from raw material deprivation , people were seeking the freedom to become something more than an employee , more than a consumer .
Working-class men ; women of all classes ; people of colour ; gays and lesbians : all of these groups were demanding the right to be considered – and to become – fully human .
Nowhere is this phenomenon better described than in Ariel Dorfman ’ s seminal book on cultural imperialism – The Empire ’ s Old Clothes .
In the first chapter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a young woman from one of the shanty-towns that encircled Chile ’ s capital city , Santiago .
Professor Dorfman , and some of his students , had come to help the shanty-dwellers repair the damage wrought by a recent flood .
“ She came up to me and asked quite frankly if it was true that I thought people shouldn ’ t read photo-novels ” , Dorfman writes – alluding to his crusade against the “ industrial products of fiction.
” Comics , soap operas , westerns , radio and TV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence : “ you name it ” , quipped Dorfman , “ I had it under scrutiny.
” “ So I stopped digging and answered her .
It was true .
I thought that photo-novels were a hazard to her health and her future .
* “ She did not seem to feel any special need for purification .
‘ Don ’ t do that to us , companerito , ’ she said in a familiar , almost tender way .
‘ Don ’ t take my dreams away from me.
” A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time David Frost was interviewing Norman Kirk , Dorfman was in the same shanty-town for the opening of a new community centre – one of the many thousands of collective initiatives funded by the democratic socialist government of Salvador Allende – when he encountered the same woman : “ I didn ’ t recognize her at first , but she remembered me .
She came up to me , just like that , and announced that I was right , that she didn ’ t read ‘ trash ’ anymore .
Then she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
‘ Now , companero , we are dreaming reality.
’ ” For nearly 50 years now , this is the dream/nightmare that has driven the politics of the Capitalist West .
How to prevent ordinary people from making their dreams real through collective action .
Certainly , it is no accident that the “ cure ” for too many dreams began in Chile .
After the USA had “ made the economy scream ” , and General Augusto Pinochet ’ s troops had gunned down Salvador Allende in his Presidential Palace , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chicago Boys ” – the followers of Milton Friedman – came to show the world how Capitalism could be kept safe from Democracy .
And the “ lessons ” from Chicago just kept coming .
Across the Tasman , Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam ’ s government was deposed in a bloodless coup by his own Governor-General ( and CIA asset ) Sir John Kerr .
Fortunately for ordinary New Zealanders , Norman Kirk ’ s untimely ( and extremely convenient ) demise in August 1974 obviated the need for such a dramatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did help out the National Party by facilitating the production of some killer campaign ads for the 1975 general election . )
Then , of course , there was the plot to topple UK Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson in 1976 , and the final coup de grace against the very possibility of democratic socialism – the capital strike against the French socialist government of President Francois Mitterrand in 1981 .
If the Left ever wanted to govern again , then it would have to lower its sights – and its red flags @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a story , probably apocryphal , about Mike Moore and the powerful Australian television series The Dismissal – which dramatized the sacking of Gough Whitlam ’ s Labor Government in 1975 .
According to the story , Moore was determined to remind his colleagues about the dangers that lay in wait for Labour governments .
What Moore wanted his colleagues to appreciate was the overwhelming power that could be brought to bear against a government that threatened the interests of the people who really mattered .
How vital it was to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damage the news media could inflict upon a political leader it didn ’ t like .
How dangerous senior public servants could be if their ministers refused to accept official advice .
Most importantly , he wanted to remind them of the risks posed to labour governments by stubborn idealists : politicians who refused to be guided by principled pragmatism and common sense .
So Moore sat all his caucus colleagues down and made them watch every one of The Dismissal ’ s six , hour-long , episodes .
Was Moore on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lessons from the fall of so many democratic socialist politicians and governments ?
More importantly , had other centre-left politicians , in other countries , reached exactly the same conclusion ?
Is that why the world ended up with Bill Clinton , Tony Blair , Helmut Schroeder , Francois Hollande , Helen Clark and Kevin Rudd ?
Or , turning the question around , is that why the campaigns of genuine leftists like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders so consistently come to grief ?
The beginnings of an answer may be found in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech delivered to the prestigious Wellington Club on 3 November 2020 by the veteran political journalist , Colin James : “ With National weak , Jacinda Ardern has political space to push real reform .
Will she ?
Can she ?
Will Grant Robertson ?
Can he ?
“ Grant Robertson has stuck to fiscal and monetary orthodoxy .
Jacinda Ardern told me back in 2018 that earns Labour a ‘ licence to govern ’ , that is , tolerance by business and other sceptics .
That is a clue to their cautious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Surely it ’ s something a little more definitive than that ?
A key , perhaps ?
Yes , a key .
That phrase : “ a licence to govern ” brings into sharp focus so much which has been unclear to the tens-of-thousands of New Zealanders who voted Labour-Green in confident expectation of ushering-in a period of much-needed , but long-delayed , change .
It explains why – in spite of her outstanding communication skills and empathy – Jacinda Ardern finds it impossible to follow the examples of Mickey Savage and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only “ licence ” a party needed to govern was the one given to them by the voters in a general election .
Forty-eight years on from the Labour landslide of 1972 ; forty-eight years after that young shanty-dweller proudly informed Ariel Dorfman that she and her comrades were “ dreaming reality ” ; Jacinda Ardern knows better .
To drive a capitalist economy , it is first necessary to obtain a licence – from the capitalists .
But , securing the “ tolerance of business and other sceptics ” is not an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so many self-denying ordinances one has to offer-up : no capital gains tax ; no wealth tax ; no return to universal union membership ; no restoration of the unconstrained right to strike ; nothing to empower or embolden that reserve army of labour we call beneficiaries ; nothing that might upset the business community , dairy farmers , or the fishing industry ; and certainly nothing to combat climate change which in any way threatens the capitalists ’ sacred right to make a profit .
Nothing , in short , that could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frustrating aspect of Jacinda ’ s “ licence to govern ” proposition is that in both historical and practical political terms she is , almost certainly , correct .
It is important to remember that both Ardern and Robertson were working in the Beehive during Helen Clark ’ s first term as Prime Minister .
They would have heard the stories about the grim “ Winter of Discontent ” that followed the creation of the Labour-Alliance coalition government in the early summer of 1999 .
How the New Zealand capitalist class threatened to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was even the slightest hint that some of the Alliance ’ s left-wing policies were about to be enacted .
How the Finance Minister , Michael Cullen , had to abase himself before the nation ’ s “ business leaders ” at the Auckland Club .
How Helen Clark felt obliged to swear that Laila Harré ’ s employer-funded child-care would only be introduced “ over my dead body ” .
The old Marxists may rail against Ardern ’ s and Labour ’ s “ incrementalism ” but when challenged to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safely under Neoliberal Capitalism , the system which , for nearly fifty years , has decreed anything more ambitious than piecemeal and largely inconsequential legislation verboten , they generally mutter something about “ revolutionary action ” and head for the bar .
They ’ re right , of course .
Neoliberal Capitalism , by declaring democratic socialism and social-democracy out-of-bounds in the 1970s and 80s has , wittingly or unwittingly , left revolution as the only viable option .
Not only when it comes to once again making it possible for the wretched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ; but also when it comes to rescuing the only planet we know of in the entire universe where ordinary people ’ s dreams of becoming truly free and fully human can be realised .
* It would be interesting to know what Ariel Dorfman ( who is still alive ) makes of the sort of communications hardware and software that has become ubiquitous in twenty-first century societies .
So much more powerful and compelling than the photo-novels and comics of the 1960s and 70s , our PCs , lap-tops , tablets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manufacture and control them masters of the planet .
The “ industrial production of fiction ” which Dorfman complained of back then seems quaint when compared to the scale of contemporary cultural imperialism ’ s reach and power .
That capitalism has placed a portal to its material and imaginative production in virtually every hand on the planet should give us pause .
Perhaps , like the young shanty-dweller , we will only be able to start “ dreaming reality ” when we throw the masters ’ “ trash ” away ?

WHAT HAS HAPPENED to Jacinda Ardern? What has become of the woman who promised to “transform” New Zealand through the “Politics of Kindness”? Where is the woman who forged a team of five million and coached it through the Covid-19 pandemic? Why is the woman who won 50.1 percent of the Party Vote refusing to respond to the needs of the poorest New Zealanders. What in the Blue Blazers is going on?
Contrast the present Labour Government’s refusal to give the poor a happy Christmas with this little vignette from Labour’s past.
“Shortly after his election as Labour Party leader in 1961, Arnold Nordmeyer was asked by the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation to recall for its listeners ‘My Most Memorable Christmas’. He spoke movingly of the first Labour Government’s decision, in December 1935, to advance the equivalent of an extra week’s relief payment to all the unemployed as a “Christmas Bonus”. That single act of state generosity, he said, sent ripples of hope and goodwill through thousands of destitute families and hundreds of cash-strapped communities. By Christmas, its effects were evident across the whole of New Zealand.”
Alternatively, there’s the extraordinary interview conducted by David Frost with New Zealand’s newly-elected Prime Minister, Norman Kirk, early in 1973. About 3 minutes into the interview Kirk talks about the letter he received from a disabled woman, thanking him for the special Christmas payment he made to all social welfare beneficiaries in December of 1972, and telling him what the extra money had made possible. Here’s the link.
Jacinda Ardern is rightly celebrated for her communication skills and for her demonstrations of empathy, but set her performances alongside Kirk’s in that interview and the huge gulf that separates the current Labour Government from its predecessor of 1972-75 is immediately apparent. Yes, the world has become a very different place, and the conduct of centre-left politics has changed dramatically. But human compassion and political authenticity are just as easy to spot in 2020 as they were in 1973. Something has been removed from our political leaders, something important. What is it? And who took it?
The answer – appropriately enough – lies in the turbulent history of the 1970s. At the heart of that history was Capitalism’s ruthless fightback against what its intellectual leaders regarded as the unwarranted, and increasingly uncontrollable, inflation of democratic expectations.
Capitalism’s problem, in a nutshell, was that too many people wanted – and were demanding – too much. Across the industrialised West, decade after decade of rising prosperity had freed ordinary people, especially young people, from the relentless pursuit of bread and butter. Having secured their freedom from raw material deprivation, people were seeking the freedom to become something more than an employee, more than a consumer. Working-class men; women of all classes; people of colour; gays and lesbians: all of these groups were demanding the right to be considered – and to become – fully human.
Nowhere is this phenomenon better described than in Ariel Dorfman’s seminal book on cultural imperialism – The Empire’s Old Clothes. In the first chapter of the book, Dorfman recalls being approached by a young woman from one of the shanty-towns that encircled Chile’s capital city, Santiago. Professor Dorfman, and some of his students, had come to help the shanty-dwellers repair the damage wrought by a recent flood.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
“She came up to me and asked quite frankly if it was true that I thought people shouldn’t read photo-novels”, Dorfman writes – alluding to his crusade against the “industrial products of fiction.” Comics, soap operas, westerns, radio and TV sitcoms, love songs, films of violence: “you name it”, quipped Dorfman, “I had it under scrutiny.”
“So I stopped digging and answered her. It was true. I thought that photo-novels were a hazard to her health and her future.*
“She did not seem to feel any special need for purification. ‘Don’t do that to us, companerito,’ she said in a familiar, almost tender way. ‘Don’t take my dreams away from me.”
A few years later, about the same time David Frost was interviewing Norman Kirk, Dorfman was in the same shanty-town for the opening of a new community centre – one of the many thousands of collective initiatives funded by the democratic socialist government of Salvador Allende – when he encountered the same woman:
“I didn’t recognize her at first, but she remembered me. She came up to me, just like that, and announced that I was right, that she didn’t read ‘trash’ anymore. Then she added a phrase which still haunts me. ‘Now, companero, we are dreaming reality.’”
For nearly 50 years now, this is the dream/nightmare that has driven the politics of the Capitalist West. How to prevent ordinary people from making their dreams real through collective action. Certainly, it is no accident that the “cure” for too many dreams began in Chile. After the USA had “made the economy scream”, and General Augusto Pinochet’s troops had gunned down Salvador Allende in his Presidential Palace, it was to Chile that the “Chicago Boys” – the followers of Milton Friedman – came to show the world how Capitalism could be kept safe from Democracy.
And the “lessons” from Chicago just kept coming. Across the Tasman, Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s government was deposed in a bloodless coup by his own Governor-General (and CIA asset) Sir John Kerr. Fortunately for ordinary New Zealanders, Norman Kirk’s untimely (and extremely convenient) demise in August 1974 obviated the need for such a dramatic intervention here. (Although the CIA did help out the National Party by facilitating the production of some killer campaign ads for the 1975 general election.) Then, of course, there was the plot to topple UK Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson in 1976, and the final coup de grace against the very possibility of democratic socialism – the capital strike against the French socialist government of President Francois Mitterrand in 1981. If the Left ever wanted to govern again, then it would have to lower its sights – and its red flags.
Back in the 1980s, there was a story, probably apocryphal, about Mike Moore and the powerful Australian television series The Dismissal – which dramatized the sacking of Gough Whitlam’s Labor Government in 1975. According to the story, Moore was determined to remind his colleagues about the dangers that lay in wait for Labour governments.
What Moore wanted his colleagues to appreciate was the overwhelming power that could be brought to bear against a government that threatened the interests of the people who really mattered. How vital it was to keep business on your side. How much damage the news media could inflict upon a political leader it didn’t like. How dangerous senior public servants could be if their ministers refused to accept official advice. Most importantly, he wanted to remind them of the risks posed to labour governments by stubborn idealists: politicians who refused to be guided by principled pragmatism and common sense. So Moore sat all his caucus colleagues down and made them watch every one of The Dismissal’s six, hour-long, episodes.
Was Moore on to something? Had he drawn the correct lessons from the fall of so many democratic socialist politicians and governments? More importantly, had other centre-left politicians, in other countries, reached exactly the same conclusion? Is that why the world ended up with Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Helmut Schroeder, Francois Hollande, Helen Clark and Kevin Rudd? Or, turning the question around, is that why the campaigns of genuine leftists like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders so consistently come to grief?
The beginnings of an answer may be found in the following passage, taken from a speech delivered to the prestigious Wellington Club on 3 November 2020 by the veteran political journalist, Colin James:
“With National weak, Jacinda Ardern has political space to push real reform. Will she? Can she? Will Grant Robertson? Can he?
“Grant Robertson has stuck to fiscal and monetary orthodoxy. Jacinda Ardern told me back in 2018 that earns Labour a ‘licence to govern’, that is, tolerance by business and other sceptics. That is a clue to their cautious mentality.”
A clue, says James. Surely it’s something a little more definitive than that? A key, perhaps? Yes, a key.
That phrase: “a licence to govern” brings into sharp focus so much which has been unclear to the tens-of-thousands of New Zealanders who voted Labour-Green in confident expectation of ushering-in a period of much-needed, but long-delayed, change. It explains why – in spite of her outstanding communication skills and empathy – Jacinda Ardern finds it impossible to follow the examples of Mickey Savage and Norman Kirk. Those leaders believed the only “licence” a party needed to govern was the one given to them by the voters in a general election. Forty-eight years on from the Labour landslide of 1972; forty-eight years after that young shanty-dweller proudly informed Ariel Dorfman that she and her comrades were “dreaming reality”; Jacinda Ardern knows better. To drive a capitalist economy, it is first necessary to obtain a licence – from the capitalists.
But, securing the “tolerance of business and other sceptics” is not an easy thing to do. There are so many self-denying ordinances one has to offer-up: no capital gains tax; no wealth tax; no return to universal union membership; no restoration of the unconstrained right to strike; nothing to empower or embolden that reserve army of labour we call beneficiaries; nothing that might upset the business community, dairy farmers, or the fishing industry; and certainly nothing to combat climate change which in any way threatens the capitalists’ sacred right to make a profit. Nothing, in short, that could possibly upset the status-quo.
The most frustrating aspect of Jacinda’s “licence to govern” proposition is that in both historical and practical political terms she is, almost certainly, correct.
It is important to remember that both Ardern and Robertson were working in the Beehive during Helen Clark’s first term as Prime Minister. They would have heard the stories about the grim “Winter of Discontent” that followed the creation of the Labour-Alliance coalition government in the early summer of 1999. How the New Zealand capitalist class threatened to “put away their cheque-books” if there was even the slightest hint that some of the Alliance’s left-wing policies were about to be enacted. How the Finance Minister, Michael Cullen, had to abase himself before the nation’s “business leaders” at the Auckland Club. How Helen Clark felt obliged to swear that Laila Harré’s employer-funded child-care would only be introduced “over my dead body”.
The old Marxists may rail against Ardern’s and Labour’s “incrementalism” but when challenged to come up with an alternative strategy for operating safely under Neoliberal Capitalism, the system which, for nearly fifty years, has decreed anything more ambitious than piecemeal and largely inconsequential legislation verboten, they generally mutter something about “revolutionary action” and head for the bar.
They’re right, of course. Neoliberal Capitalism, by declaring democratic socialism and social-democracy out-of-bounds in the 1970s and 80s has, wittingly or unwittingly, left revolution as the only viable option. Not only when it comes to once again making it possible for the wretched of the earth to “dream reality”; but also when it comes to rescuing the only planet we know of in the entire universe where ordinary people’s dreams of becoming truly free and fully human can be realised.
ENDS
* It would be interesting to know what Ariel Dorfman (who is still alive) makes of the sort of communications hardware and software that has become ubiquitous in twenty-first century societies. So much more powerful and compelling than the photo-novels and comics of the 1960s and 70s, our PCs, lap-tops, tablets and cellphones have made the corporations who manufacture and control them masters of the planet. The “industrial production of fiction” which Dorfman complained of back then seems quaint when compared to the scale of contemporary cultural imperialism’s reach and power. That capitalism has placed a portal to its material and imaginative production in virtually every hand on the planet should give us pause. Perhaps, like the young shanty-dweller, we will only be able to start “dreaming reality” when we throw the masters’ “trash” away?


thedailyblog--2020-11-12--On Rational Economic Decision-Making In The Age Of Covid-19 Following Our Latest Community Transmiss

On Rational Economic Decision-Making In The Age Of Covid-19 Following Our Latest Community Transmission

Earlier this week , we had ourselves some chilling news .
A new case of Covid-19 community transmission – without a clear link to a quarantine or isolation facility .
Worse , it turned out that the worker in question had gone to work whilst infectious .
Now , the natural impulse for much of humanity in such circumstances is to cast about to find somebody to blame .
This is psychologically helpful ( for us , at least ) – as it means we feel like we ’ re actively doing something .
“ We ’ re Helping ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form that “ help ” may take looks occasionally like some form of online not-quite-lynch-mob .
However , while there was some chagrin about the worker and their situation – that was as nothing compared to what ’ s been unfolding in the direction of her employer .
And perhaps understandably , again , so .
After all , initial reports had said employer stating they were aware the worker was pending a Covid-19 test , the inference being they ’ d told them to come in anyway ; with the most recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Chen said Chinese people were very cautious and said she never expected a small cold would turn into Covid-19 “ , not sounding too terribly much better .
Yet while “ blame ” is psychologically cathartic – it ’ s another word that is actually rather more useful ( and even occasionally coterminous ) : “ Explain ” .
The thing we need to do now is to work out what went wrong , where , and how we prevent there from being yet another repeat in a week or a month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indeterminate point in the future .
This isn ’ t about the situation wherein the virus presumably breached quarantine or isolation to reach the worker .
Other people are handling that .
Top men .
But rather – it ’ s about the bit wherein a person , already infected , massively increases the ongoing community transmission risk … by going to work , and interacting with other people , whilst awaiting a Covid-19 rest and result .
Is that on them ?
I don ’ t know how much agency they had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from an armchair to insist that somebody who feels even a bit sick ( sick enough to go in for a Covid-19 test , definitely ) to ‘ stay home , save lives ’ .
It ’ s a no-brainer in fact .
Except in that actual situation itself … things can suddenly start to look a bit murky .
You may feel it ’ s ‘ not that bad ’ , or that it ’ s unlikely you ’ ve got it ( which , as I say , doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on here – it was serious enough to voluntarily opt for a test off her own initiative ) .
More concerningly – while you might think you ’ re in a risky situation , your employer may disagree .
Occasionally rather strenuously .
Potentially putting some pressure , perhaps even pseudo-legal pressure upon you to come in and fulfil your contractual obligations .
That shouldn ’ t happen .
And “ shouldn ’ t happen ” – especially come 2020 – appears to mean “ does happen ” , with some depressing degree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more to compel employers ( and , for that matter , workers ) to make good ‘ decisions ’ and stay home where there ’ s even a semi-plausible likelihood of infection ?
Probably .
Although as this case demonstrates – that ’ s all hindsight ( which is , as we all know , generally of far greater clarity and perspicacity than as the vantage-point things are happening ) .
‘ Support ’ rather than ‘ compel ’ is nicer language – and presumably more likely to be more sustainable in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 relative success story has been based around ‘ taking the people with you ’ from the Government … and the UK and much of the US and Europe are flailing due to population fatigue with being carried along in endless evidently iffily ineffectual measures ) .
It would therefore be tempting to investigate whether subsidies for sudden Covid-19 related sick-days were sufficiently available/publicized in this case – although that doesn ’ t actually help an employer immediately access a substitute worker to fill in for the one that ’ s now housebound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the simplest things we can do , which is also one of the most dramatically efficacious interventions – is changing the way people think .
Which does not necessarily require the expenditure of money in subsidies or law-changes so as to ‘ alter the playing-field ’ and condition what is plausible , let alone viable to do .
Effectively , you ’ re changing what it is that ’ s ‘ rational ’ to do – either by changing the direct incentives ( via economic or legal impetus ) , or by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowledge , understanding ) .
Both of these elements – ‘ rationality ’ and ‘ knowledge ’ – are cornerstones of how an idealized ‘ capitalism ’ is supposed to function .
The current Covid-19 retail outlet controversy demonstrates that many of the actors in question do not possess this rationality ; at least partially due to imperfect information and differing , questionable perceptions .
Consider this : on the surface , from the employer ’ s perspective , evidently it seems pretty rational to insist that a retail worker comes into work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , right ?
Except we ’ re in the midst of a global pandemic , there ’ s been two community transmission cases in the past week happening literally just down the road , and if it does turn out that your retail worker whom you ’ re requesting to come in has the virus … you ’ re quite likely to wind up “ Mt Roskill Evangelical Church ” ‘ d or “ Coldstore ’ d ” , and have a cluster named after your business .
Now , with rationality in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most business-owners would probably prefer to avoid .
Not all publicity , as they say , is good publicity .
But evidently , either these considerations weren ’ t front-and-center for the management who requested the worker come in regardless of illness … or they rationally decided that the risk of the illness actually being Covid-19 was sufficiently remote to just have her back in anyway rather than finding a replacement staffer for the day or closing up shop .
Either way – it looks a bit irrational in retrospect .
But , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invariably often do .
Objects in the rear-view mirror are closer than they appear , however , so it ’ s an act likely to have consequences going forward for everybody involved .
We can do various things to try and ‘ tip the scales ’ a bit – and make it more viable for an employer to make what is now , in retrospect , the right call : not calling in a worker awaiting a Covid-19 test , potentially closing up for the day if they can ’ t run the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These include those aforementioned subsidies – acting on the presumption that by eliminating the economic hit for making the ‘ virtuous ’ call , you encourage it to actually happen .
It ’ s an unfortunate side-point that some employers don ’ t actually make their decisions based on such things ( either the economics or ‘ virtue ’ ) and instead prefer to prioritize fixed and rigid projections of what employees ‘ should ’ behave like … but more upon that some other time ( it ’ s partially why uneconomical self-service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human staff at supermarkets even though they cost more and facilitate vastly greater losses through shoplifting – because for these sorts of employers , it ’ s about power , not economics ) .
But in the mean-time , and alongside all of that … I think it ’ s probably a great time to be reminding everybody – both employers and employees alike – that actions have consequences , even the unintended ones ; that seemingly minor impositions can have major ‘ ripple effects ’ that splash-back .
And that like it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this together .
In the Age of Covid-19 – We are ALL our Brother ’ s Keeper , now .

Earlier this week, we had ourselves some chilling news. A new case of Covid-19 community transmission – without a clear link to a quarantine or isolation facility. Worse, it turned out that the worker in question had gone to work whilst infectious.
Now, the natural impulse for much of humanity in such circumstances is to cast about to find somebody to blame. This is psychologically helpful (for us, at least) – as it means we feel like we’re actively doing something. “We’re Helping”, indeed. Even if the tangible form that “help” may take looks occasionally like some form of online not-quite-lynch-mob.
However, while there was some chagrin about the worker and their situation – that was as nothing compared to what’s been unfolding in the direction of her employer. And perhaps understandably, again, so.
After all, initial reports had said employer stating they were aware the worker was pending a Covid-19 test, the inference being they’d told them to come in anyway; with the most recent line that, and I quote: “Chen said Chinese people were very cautious and said she never expected a small cold would turn into Covid-19“, not sounding too terribly much better.
Yet while “blame” is psychologically cathartic – it’s another word that is actually rather more useful (and even occasionally coterminous): “Explain”.
The thing we need to do now is to work out what went wrong, where, and how we prevent there from being yet another repeat in a week or a month or in the next crisis at some indeterminate point in the future.
This isn’t about the situation wherein the virus presumably breached quarantine or isolation to reach the worker. Other people are handling that. Top men.
But rather – it’s about the bit wherein a person, already infected, massively increases the ongoing community transmission risk … by going to work, and interacting with other people, whilst awaiting a Covid-19 rest and result.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Is that on them? I don’t know how much agency they had in the situation. It is easy from an armchair to insist that somebody who feels even a bit sick (sick enough to go in for a Covid-19 test, definitely) to ‘stay home, save lives’. It’s a no-brainer in fact. Except in that actual situation itself … things can suddenly start to look a bit murky. You may feel it’s ‘not that bad’, or that it’s unlikely you’ve got it (which, as I say, doesn’t appear to be what’s gone on here – it was serious enough to voluntarily opt for a test off her own initiative). More concerningly – while you might think you’re in a risky situation, your employer may disagree. Occasionally rather strenuously. Potentially putting some pressure, perhaps even pseudo-legal pressure upon you to come in and fulfil your contractual obligations.
That shouldn’t happen. And “shouldn’t happen” – especially come 2020 – appears to mean “does happen”, with some depressing degree of frequency.
Could the state do more to compel employers (and, for that matter, workers) to make good ‘decisions’ and stay home where there’s even a semi-plausible likelihood of infection? Probably. Although as this case demonstrates – that’s all hindsight (which is, as we all know, generally of far greater clarity and perspicacity than as the vantage-point things are happening). ‘Support’ rather than ‘compel’ is nicer language – and presumably more likely to be more sustainable in the long term (hence why our own Covid-19 relative success story has been based around ‘taking the people with you’ from the Government … and the UK and much of the US and Europe are flailing due to population fatigue with being carried along in endless evidently iffily ineffectual measures). It would therefore be tempting to investigate whether subsidies for sudden Covid-19 related sick-days were sufficiently available/publicized in this case – although that doesn’t actually help an employer immediately access a substitute worker to fill in for the one that’s now housebound pending their test.
However, one of the simplest things we can do, which is also one of the most dramatically efficacious interventions – is changing the way people think. Which does not necessarily require the expenditure of money in subsidies or law-changes so as to ‘alter the playing-field’ and condition what is plausible, let alone viable to do.
Effectively, you’re changing what it is that’s ‘rational’ to do – either by changing the direct incentives (via economic or legal impetus), or by changing the perceptions of things (increasing knowledge, understanding). Both of these elements – ‘rationality’ and ‘knowledge’ – are cornerstones of how an idealized ‘capitalism’ is supposed to function.
The current Covid-19 retail outlet controversy demonstrates that many of the actors in question do not possess this rationality; at least partially due to imperfect information and differing, questionable perceptions.
Consider this: on the surface, from the employer’s perspective, evidently it seems pretty rational to insist that a retail worker comes into work, even if they’re sick, right?
Except we’re in the midst of a global pandemic, there’s been two community transmission cases in the past week happening literally just down the road, and if it does turn out that your retail worker whom you’re requesting to come in has the virus … you’re quite likely to wind up “Mt Roskill Evangelical Church”‘d or “Coldstore’d”, and have a cluster named after your business.
Now, with rationality in mind … that’s something which most business-owners would probably prefer to avoid. Not all publicity, as they say, is good publicity.
But evidently, either these considerations weren’t front-and-center for the management who requested the worker come in regardless of illness … or they rationally decided that the risk of the illness actually being Covid-19 was sufficiently remote to just have her back in anyway rather than finding a replacement staffer for the day or closing up shop.
Either way – it looks a bit irrational in retrospect. But, then, things viewed in hindsight almost invariably often do. Objects in the rear-view mirror are closer than they appear, however, so it’s an act likely to have consequences going forward for everybody involved.
We can do various things to try and ‘tip the scales’ a bit – and make it more viable for an employer to make what is now, in retrospect, the right call: not calling in a worker awaiting a Covid-19 test, potentially closing up for the day if they can’t run the shop without a single retail worker. These include those aforementioned subsidies – acting on the presumption that by eliminating the economic hit for making the ‘virtuous’ call, you encourage it to actually happen. It’s an unfortunate side-point that some employers don’t actually make their decisions based on such things (either the economics or ‘virtue’) and instead prefer to prioritize fixed and rigid projections of what employees ‘should’ behave like … but more upon that some other time (it’s partially why uneconomical self-service checkouts keep being rolled out to replace human staff at supermarkets even though they cost more and facilitate vastly greater losses through shoplifting – because for these sorts of employers, it’s about power, not economics).
But in the mean-time, and alongside all of that … I think it’s probably a great time to be reminding everybody – both employers and employees alike – that actions have consequences, even the unintended ones; that seemingly minor impositions can have major ‘ripple effects’ that splash-back. And that like it or not, we really are all in this together.
In the Age of Covid-19 – We are ALL our Brother’s Keeper, now.