Sometimes people use completely irrelevant statistics to bolster their dishonest campaigns. Here, speaking on behalf of UNITE and the SuperSizeMyPay.Com campaign, co-ordinator Simon Oosterman uses "poverty" statistics to build sympathy and support for his cause.
“Community groups are joining the fast food workers’ call for McDonald’s, Burger King and (Restaurant Brands restaurants) KFC, Starbucks and Pizza Hut, to take social responsibility for the welfare of their workers, their families and the wider community,” Oosterman said.
“In 2004, 19% of families had incomes below the poverty line and 43% of dependent children in sole parent families were living below the poverty line. [1] Over 22% of households reported that ‘food runs out because of lack of money’. [2]
“As the biggest brands, these companies set the wage standards for the entire industry and are in a key position to play a major role in making poverty wages history in New Zealand."
It is not the fault of the fast-food industry that so many people CHOOSE to raise their children single-handedly on a benefit. In all likelihood the 43 percent Oosterman refers won't have a working parent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Plus of course increasing the price of food through higher wages will argably make it harder for those in so called poverty!
Actually, over half of sole parent families have an employed parent: half of sole mothers and more than half of sole fathers.
anonymous, did I say otherwise?
The figure referred to here is forty three percent of children with single parents being below the poverty line, which ties in with your comment.
The fact remains, NZ single parents have the second lowest employment rate in the OECD.
Here you go: 55% of sole parent households with dependent children had an employed parent in Sept 2005.
http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/pasfull/pasfull.nsf/7cf46ae26dcb6800cc256a62000a2248/4c2567ef00247c6acc2570b400195d12?OpenDocument
See Table 10 (continued), row 21 (subtract 45% "none employed" from 100)
I think their argument is that higher wages would provide an incentive to leave benefit. I don’t see how that is dishonest.
I've just seen your comment and I'm not going to rewrite this one. And the relevance of your last sentence to this issue is....?
Another question:
Do you have figures to back up your claim that “so many sole parents CHOOSE to raise their children single-handedly on a benefit”, as opposed to being thrown into that position by the actions of others?
I doesn't help that those crying poverty feed their families that same expensive fast-food...
Anonymous, Their argument is people (and their children) are poor because of low wages. Don't equivocate.
To your second question, there is some US research about which partners initiate divorce. It shows that 70 percent of the time it's the female. But that is not what I base my opinion on.
I believe in freewill as opposed to determinist arguments about people's circumstances and environment being beyond their control.
They don’t actually state it as you have put it, but you could interpret it that way, I agree. I interpreted it differently. Perhaps you could challenge them to clarify what they mean.
In my opinion, it is just as wrong to assume that everything that happens to people is the result of their “choice”, as it is to believe that none of it is. In the real world, people end up in situations through their own and others’ actions, and also through environmental factors, some of which are beyond their control (as in Oswald’s example). Your constant focus on DPB recipients as agents of their own misfortune is not balanced. Nothing is ever that simple.
The DPB focus, (which I don't think has dominated this blog ), is one I undertook in 2001 because I saw the DPB as the best example of how a govt can stuff a society with its intrusion.
For the record, you can categorise people on the DPB in three groups.
1/ Those on it temporarily, using it to tide themselves over a rough spot
2/ Those cycling on and off it as circumstance dictates.
3/ Those on it permanently, with little intention or ability to do anything else.
As it happens the groups are fairly evenly split.
They are quite different "groups" of individuals. And I am mindful of the distinctions.
Post a Comment