Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
We got a note from our school saying the government has shared a tineline that aims to get kids back by 29th April, so they're obviously feeling pretty positive about the recent numbers. Obviously not confirmed but will be interesting to see what they say this week.
-
My kids are out of school until the 22nd of May
Fuck my life
-
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Can only see the borders opening if they have a vaccine or a quick turn around test, even as much as a day (preferably less).
It'll be interesting to see if the 15 minute Covid-19 tests that were in the media a week or so back amount to anything reliable/cheap/mass producible.
Depending on which way all of this goes, they could be a temporary measure that forms past of Passport Control to get things up and running.
-
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
My kids are out of school until the 22nd of May
Fuck my life
Aussie have gone from being halfway to hardcore. At least where school is concerned
-
@Donsteppa said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Can only see the borders opening if they have a vaccine or a quick turn around test, even as much as a day (preferably less).
It'll be interesting to see if the 15 minute Covid-19 tests that were in the media a week or so back amount to anything reliable/cheap/mass producible.
Depending on which way all of this goes, they could be a temporary measure that forms past of Passport Control to get things up and running.
The should look at how Taiwan is doing it. They have been the most successful at stopping the virus from coming in from abroad
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder would personally make me very happy too!!!
How would that happen? The govt has put us (at great cost) on the road to total elimination of the virus, unless Aus can do the same then we cannot let them i without 14 day quarantine. We have been told repeatedly the dangers of exponential growth, now the govt is going to pay a price for the line of scare mongering.
By taking this path when nobody else has, then we have no option but to remain isolated as the rest of the world forms its own networks.I am curious as to your thoughts on how the New Zealand economy is going to be different given everything that is happening in the world despite our lockdown. Do you think the New Zealand economy would be significantly different had we done it under your thought process?
Yes.
Significantly? I don’t. Somewhat? Yes.
Cool you don't think having all businesses open and tourist ventures helped would significantly change the economy. Ok
Tourism was dead in the water even if we did nothing - nobody is coming here for a holiday while Coronavirus is rampant, because everywhere else is doing distancing and lockdowns and quarantines. Who would come here for a holiday when they have to pay 2-3 times as much for a seat to have distance on the plane because it's required by their home country anyway, and then sit in quarantine for 2 weeks on arrival back home? Flights and airlines have stopped operating. Airlines are insolvent and collapsing all around the world.
Overseas trips are among the first luxuries to be cut by people who have lost jobs or have uncertainty about their future prospects and there's a whole lot of that now.
Domestic tourism is not happening in any sort of volume either, even without a lockdown - too much fear and uncertainty.
12% of the economy, 13% of our jobs, mostly gone overnight (we'll keep some for domestic tourism). Required isolation and border controls sped it up a bit, but even without those, it was going to be a quick end.
Related but separate from tourism, domestic business travel (and associated accommodation/restaurants) is taking a huge dive - people discovered online meetings long before we reached level 4 (my employer worked that out before levels were instituted). It could be years before that level of travel is back, if ever. Likewise, if working from home becomes a lot more prevalent, how much does leasing of commercial office space reduce over time?
This is all relatively direct spending. What about indirect spending? Conservatively, we have already wiped 10% off GDP and increased unemployment to 10% (from 4%), and probably increased underutilisation to 15% (from 10%). GDP is simply a measure of spending in the economy, and if $31 billion didn't get earned or spent, that's a lot of money not available to buy a coffee with, to go out for dinner, to buy clothing, get a haircut (people still get haircuts, but fewer in a year). It's not going to be essential spending that gets cut, it's the discretionary spending.
If we just opted for social distancing and quarantining/isolation for border arrivals instead of lockdown, how many small businesses go to the wall in a year anyway because their income is down 20-30% and falling with no way to make it viable because their bank and landlord won't assist them? How many business owners increase their hours to 70-80 per week in an unsustainable and ultimately futile attempt to make it work? How many broken marriages, mental breakdowns, suicides do we get in that pathway? Is it more or less than the current pathway? Do we get worse or better outcomes from going tough now and soft later, or from going softer now but tougher for longer?
The premise of the current plan is that the total pain will be less if we get it done quickly than if we drag it out, especially because government can provide a lot more support in a short space of time than over a longer time frame.
We should see the next part of the government's financial support package this week - our current support is a good start, but hopefully this week provides a lot more support for small businesses especially as they need it.
Side note - a lot of owners of small businesses are in personal financial trouble because of personal guarantees. One of the reasons for companies as a legal entity was limited liability, but personal guarantees have made that a lot less of a reality. I would like to see personal guarantees banned to make limited liability companies actually limited liability, or if that isn't done, at least make them void if the failure was due to the pandemic (similar to the safe harbour announced for trading while insolvent if the insolvency is principally due to the pandemic). If someone added mortgages on residential property to fund business, I wouldn't be upset about that either...
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand
This is all relatively direct spending. What about indirect spending? Conservatively, we have already wiped 10% off GDP and increased unemployment to 10% (from 4%), and probably increased underutilisation to 15% (from 10%). GDP is simply a measure of spending in the economy, and if $31 billion didn't get earned or spent, that's a lot of money not available to buy a coffee with, to go out for dinner, to buy clothing, get a haircut (people still get haircuts, but fewer in a year). It's not going to be essential spending that gets cut, it's the discretionary spending.
If we just opted for social distancing and quarantining/isolation for border arrivals instead of lockdown, how many small businesses go to the wall in a year anyway because their income is down 20-30% and falling with no way to make it viable because their bank and landlord won't assist them? How many business owners increase their hours to 70-80 per week in an unsustainable and ultimately futile attempt to make it work? How many broken marriages, mental breakdowns, suicides do we get in that pathway? Is it more or less than the current pathway? Do we get worse or better outcomes from going tough now and soft later, or from going softer now but tougher for longer?
The premise of the current plan is that the total pain will be less if we get it done quickly than if we drag it out, especially because government can provide a lot more support in a short space of time than over a longer time frame.
We should see the next part of the government's financial support package this week - our current support is a good start, but hopefully this week provides a lot more support for small businesses especially as they need it.
Side note - a lot of owners of small businesses are in personal financial trouble because of personal guarantees. One of the reasons for companies as a legal entity was limited liability, but personal guarantees have made that a lot less of a reality. I would like to see personal guarantees banned to make limited liability companies actually limited liability, or if that isn't done, at least make them void if the failure was due to the pandemic (similar to the safe harbour announced for trading while insolvent if the insolvency is principally due to the pandemic). If someone added mortgages on residential property to fund business, I wouldn't be upset about that either...
Good post! As someone who, (pre CV) returned to NZ every nine months or so to visit elderly parents, I've gotten the feeling over the last two or three years that people collectively have been spending beyong their means.
Whether that's right or wrong, I don't think the business cycle will ever be abolished, so businesses which can't withstand a 20% fall in turnover for a year or two aren't really viable. IOW, CV in such cases won't cause their demise, so much as being the catalyst. Such businesses shouldn't be financed with lots of borrowing and can't afford high rents. Personal guarantees are only pouring fuel on that fire. But probably imprudent for the banks to lend without them?
I do think that post CV rent levels will come under threat -- if SMEs go broke the next tenant will need lower outgoings. And highly geared landlords will also be under the cosh.
Be that as it may, if CV severely curtails international tourism, business travel and immigration it's safe to say GDP will take a big hit.
Within that, a hard short lockdown seems more sensible, because debt/overdue payments are time related. But once the virus is all but gone (4 -8 weeks), I can't see the point of schools being closed, shops not being generally open subject to social distancing and people going back to work where WFH is less productive. Sport can be played, perhaps with some crowd restrictions.
But no V shaped recovery either way.
-
@Godder Particularly like the last paragraph. We have to cushion the blow for businesses, through no fault of their own, are going to fail.
Those are good suggestions on how the banks can come to the party there.
I hope we get to lockdown 3 and 2 very quickly so we can start the recoverly. THe longer we leave it, the worse the depression is going to be.
-
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I hope we get to lockdown 3 and 2 very quickly so we can start the recoverly. THe longer we leave it, the worse the depression is going to be.
I'd like a category of Distanced businesses & services to go with Essential ones at Level 4 in the interim. It's good that the groundsman at the golf course can (finally...) get back to work, but the owner/operator lawn-mowing round could do the same. Anything that can be safely done to lessen the impact, even it it's only around the fringes while at Level 4.
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:.
Side note - a lot of owners of small businesses are in personal financial trouble because of personal guarantees. One of the reasons for companies as a legal entity was limited liability, but personal guarantees have made that a lot less of a reality. I would like to see personal guarantees banned to make limited liability companies actually limited liability, or if that isn't done, at least make them void if the failure was due to the pandemic (similar to the safe harbour announced for trading while insolvent if the insolvency is principally due to the pandemic). If someone added mortgages on residential property to fund business, I wouldn't be upset about that either...
Personal guarantees are rife, banks (to some degree), other financial institutions (to a great degree) and suppliers all do it. If you are a recently established small business you may find it difficult to get a supply account without one. I had a guy talk to me who had an educational company that he started with his wife. His business plan was good but the way his business developed was nothing like it. He was paying his power out of a personal account, his MFDs and his business car were provided on lease under a personal guarantee and his landlord (a law firm) had a lien on their house, which they exercised. They were bankrupted but not before losing their family home, transport and marriage. But here’s the thing, they were a going concern with a few tweaks, if they had just sought some advice from an experienced mentor and accountant, and if they had stayed away from the predators. And I have to say their bank tried to save them as much as was reasonable.
-
@Donsteppa a L2.5 or L3.5 sort of thing.
I think these need to be moving targets.
I honestly cant see the benefit of remaining in lockdown past the original date (although this is a Thursday, so maybe make it the following Tuesday the 28th since ANZAC Day is mondayised - although another day at home...)
Was interesting watching Breakfast this morning and how a couple on there plus some viewers saying stay in lockdown aslong as needed...I wonder if they are all on full pay?
I know some teachers who say they think we should stay in lockdown for another 2 weeks...
apparently WHO are relasing some 'rules' for countries rto follow post-Lockdown.
This is the key part I think, how countries deal with things coming abck to whatever the new normal is.
-
@taniwharugby Yeah, some people are not understanding the pain this is causing.
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Donsteppa a L2.5 or L3.5 sort of thing.
I know some teachers who say they think we should stay in lockdown for another 2 weeks...
Ha ha! Of course they are. Full pay and no work.. It's a doddle
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
apparently WHO are relasing some 'rules' for countries rto follow post-Lockdown.
If true, that's only going to fuel the conspiracists. The WHO can't say they've demonstrated the level of competency for an unelected body to be telling countries how and when to provide their citizens with the liberties they used to enjoy.
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
f true, that's only going to fuel the conspiracists. The WHO can't say they've demonstrated the level of competency for an unelected body to be telling countries how and when to provide their citizens with the liberties they used to enjoy.
I saw a headline today with WHO saying world food supply chains are at risk...as if people werent panic buying enough already you fluffybunnies!
-
Some interesting assertions here. Were are in extraordinary times.
-
@pakman said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand
This is all relatively direct spending. What about indirect spending? Conservatively, we have already wiped 10% off GDP and increased unemployment to 10% (from 4%), and probably increased underutilisation to 15% (from 10%). GDP is simply a measure of spending in the economy, and if $31 billion didn't get earned or spent, that's a lot of money not available to buy a coffee with, to go out for dinner, to buy clothing, get a haircut (people still get haircuts, but fewer in a year). It's not going to be essential spending that gets cut, it's the discretionary spending.
If we just opted for social distancing and quarantining/isolation for border arrivals instead of lockdown, how many small businesses go to the wall in a year anyway because their income is down 20-30% and falling with no way to make it viable because their bank and landlord won't assist them? How many business owners increase their hours to 70-80 per week in an unsustainable and ultimately futile attempt to make it work? How many broken marriages, mental breakdowns, suicides do we get in that pathway? Is it more or less than the current pathway? Do we get worse or better outcomes from going tough now and soft later, or from going softer now but tougher for longer?
The premise of the current plan is that the total pain will be less if we get it done quickly than if we drag it out, especially because government can provide a lot more support in a short space of time than over a longer time frame.
We should see the next part of the government's financial support package this week - our current support is a good start, but hopefully this week provides a lot more support for small businesses especially as they need it.
Side note - a lot of owners of small businesses are in personal financial trouble because of personal guarantees. One of the reasons for companies as a legal entity was limited liability, but personal guarantees have made that a lot less of a reality. I would like to see personal guarantees banned to make limited liability companies actually limited liability, or if that isn't done, at least make them void if the failure was due to the pandemic (similar to the safe harbour announced for trading while insolvent if the insolvency is principally due to the pandemic). If someone added mortgages on residential property to fund business, I wouldn't be upset about that either...
Good post! As someone who, (pre CV) returned to NZ every nine months or so to visit elderly parents, I've gotten the feeling over the last two or three years that people collectively have been spending beyong their means.
Whether that's right or wrong, I don't think the business cycle will ever be abolished, so businesses which can't withstand a 20% fall in turnover for a year or two aren't really viable. IOW, CV in such cases won't cause their demise, so much as being the catalyst. Such businesses shouldn't be financed with lots of borrowing and can't afford high rents. Personal guarantees are only pouring fuel on that fire. But probably imprudent for the banks to lend without them?
I do think that post CV rent levels will come under threat -- if SMEs go broke the next tenant will need lower outgoings. And highly geared landlords will also be under the cosh.
Be that as it may, if CV severely curtails international tourism, business travel and immigration it's safe to say GDP will take a big hit.
Within that, a hard short lockdown seems more sensible, because debt/overdue payments are time related. But once the virus is all but gone (4 -8 weeks), I can't see the point of schools being closed, shops not being generally open subject to social distancing and people going back to work where WFH is less productive. Sport can be played, perhaps with some crowd restrictions.
But no V shaped recovery either way.
Are you joking? You think companies that cannot handle a 20% drop in revenue for a couple of years running aren't really viable?? If that is a prevailing thought we are screwed.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Wouldn't be many left would there.
In nice simple numbers a $1m revenue business @ 20% margin could have a profit large enough to look after a small family. Take that away for 2 years...what was very viable now isn't.
-
@Snowy said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Wouldn't be many left would there.
In nice simple numbers a $1m revenue business @ 20% margin could have a profit large enough to look after a small family. Take that away for 2 years...what was very viable now isn't.
I know you were going for simple numbers, but 20% margin is also generous (but certainly a minimal goal). Many business are waaay below that, but they are viable because they still make money for the owners, or they are growing/being repaired