The 'deny or discredit' approach - two examples

I've been debating with a couple of people via blogs/newspapers about welfare matters.

Here's a response to an earlier letter published in the Dominion Post.

My reply:

Correspondent Teresa Homan doubts the veracity of my statistics and wants to know where they come from. The answer is, this newspaper, which reported in November last year, "More than 5000 people are collecting benefits because drug and alcohol addiction is preventing them from working". I am assuming the information was released under the Official Information Act. It is, in any case, consistent with my own earlier requests.

And over on Breaking Views Mike Treen has presented me with a bigger better graph which introduces a different  measure but is entirely consistent with what I've been saying about recessions and the nature of the unemployed during them. He writes:

Hi Lindsay,

Thanks for trying to rebut my graph. I have redone it for the combined benefit numbers (Unemployed, sickness and invalid together). It shows a somewhat less dramatic but still dramatic gap opening up between numbers on benefits and the broader Jobless number. The Jobless number goes from being regularly 20-50,000 above the combined benefit number to being 50,000 below the number. Here is your graph when done properly.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18076151/Combined%20benefit%20grap.png

 My response:

Hi Mike

Your HLFS graph line has now switched to "jobless" rather than "unemployed" producing a higher number.

The last time the "jobless" were above the number on benefits was the period during 1989 - 1993, also a substantial recession which featured higher unemployment than the latest.

Which bears out the points I've raised about the nature of the unemployed during recessions. They have more assets; they are more likely to have a partner; they are more likely to be short-term unemployed - all of which, rightly or wrongly, prevent them from accessing a benefit.

Anyway, had you included your original graph line of officially "unemployed" it would fall well below the number supported on the combined SIU. Why did you drop it?

I think I know the answer to that. It would have contradicted the original claim which was:

The combined efforts of both National and Labour governments’ punitive policies towards the unemployed seems to have removed over 100,000 people from rightful access to an unemployment benefit.

The combined efforts of both National and Labour governments’ punitive policies towards the unemployed seems to have removed over 100,000 people from rightful access to an unemployment benefit. - See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/01/30/billions-of-dollars-stolen-from-the-unemployed/#sthash.mBmmhTuO.dpuf