u/Look_out_Cliff

I don't think it's coincidence that National have turned it up to 11 on the 'nasty party scale' in the last couple of weeks.

In fact it EXACTLY lines up with 6 months out from the election.

Clearly this is a strategy timed for the election to paint the opposition as soft and wet AF... and to out manouver NZ First in the nasty stakes.

I wonder what the Nats called this pre-meditated project? My suggestion is 'Operation Cunt'.

Edit: Intonation, typo

Every time I hear NACT1 bagging Labour for the deficit they acquired I immediately think 'Yes, but there was a once in a lifetime / century pandemic.'.

Most of my friends and family agree that this criticism isn't fair, or really valid at all.

But clearly a large part of the population ARE falling for the spin.

I dont really have a question. I'm just confused, stunned, shocked, disappointed... that large swathes of NZers think this is fair criticism and are gobbling it up.

I increasingly think we need an NZ version of Led by Donkeys.

Edit: typo

Where are the best spots to watch the Phoenix women in the final this Saturday?
(In Wellington obviously)

If court cases about industry driven climate change are now blocked in NZ, political donations from corporate emitters should also be banned.

What sort of corrupt tin pot country are we becoming?

If court cases about industry driven climate change are now blocked in NZ, political donations from corporate emitters should also be banned.

Our CEO gives me issues to scope out every few weeks. These are delivered verbally in a few sentences. I'm sure they sound simple, but they usually involve quite a bit of engineering, construction, planning, compliance etc...

I never get a brief.

Sometimes I ask for a piece of research done elsewhere in the biz and it's usually advised that there's little capacity to do these extra pieces of work. So I make assumptions.

The investigation usually reveals that the answer is actually not as simple as first thought. I work on 3-5 options.

After a couple of weeks I present the findings in a doc and setup a presentation meeting 3-4 days later.

I do probably overcook the document a bit to be honest. I don't present the options as clearly as I could. I'm usually overworked and don't have time to really edit and refine the options doc as best I should.

I never get feedback before the meeting when there is a window to hone in the focus or change tack. People do read it but there's usually zero response.

In the meeting its often made clear that I misunderstood the brief, didn't quote the right thing, missed something significant that was never explicitly included in the 'brief', or quoted for something we would never do. In front of everyone.

Today someone who I knew had read the document sat there with their head in their hands in frustration as I presented the options. They had 4 days to give early feedback.

I feel like an idiot most times and kick myself for not setting up a mid scope check in.

My idea to reduce super costs without penalizing those who want to retire at 65:

Everyone gets 50% of their super rate at 65.

Those who choose to stop working completely get the full 100%.

Those who stay in the workforce forfeit 50%, but will still be better off by working full or part time.

This allows people who are tired from physical work to retire.

It doesn't penalise people who have 'paid into the system', everyone gets something at 65.

It encourages people who can to stay in the workforce, which is good for physical, mental, social wellbeing.

It encourages people to gradually stop working, rather than abruptly stopping.

People shifting to part time frees up space for trainees, grads, apprenticeships. We could pair part time retirees with apprentices to 'hand over their role' and train the next gen.

It's simpler than means testing everyone.