Friday, November 20, 2015

DomPost at it again

The DomPost is a highly manipulative paper. If they publish a piece that is in conflict with their own editorial viewpoint some trick will be employed to twist it.

Today's prime example is the appearance of this headline in BusinessDay:

Living wage good for singles

Naturally I look first for the author. Eric Crampton. Well there is no way Eric Crampton would be plumping for the living wage.

The guts of his column deals with how the living wage is not an effective tool for lifting the living standards of those with dependent families because of the commensurate loss of WFF assistance. The majority of council workers are not supporting families so the living wage fails in targeting those most in need. He says central govt is better placed to design income support via the tax system. He then works through some of the negative but "logical" effects of the WCC imposing the living wage on contractors (ruling pending in the courts).

The implication can be drawn that the living wage is good for singles despite not helping the partnered-with-children.

But is isn't good for the ratepayers (everyone directly or indirectly, including singles) if it leads to "higher rates, fewer services, or more debt" .

It also won't be good for singles, particularly the young, if it drives up unemployment.


gravedodger said...

When social engineering and the real world collide, collateral damage suffocates many innocent victims.
Great post as always.

Eric Crampton said...

It's probably my fault for having pitched a headline that was a bit too complicated (Living Wages, Dying Fiduciary Responsibility).

I didn't hit on the unemployment point as it's unlikely to happen: if it were rolled out broadly, definitely. But when it's just Council paying too much for Council stuff, we should get perhaps some queueing for Council jobs but otherwise just shifts from public to private sector employment.

S Beast said...

Living wages would work better in an environment with limited automation.

Won't be long before those expensive jobs are replaced with a Jetson type innovation. They'll have no choice given the costs involved.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

To unpublished Anon, I will no longer publish any comment from you that recommends that people "starve in the gutter".

Anonymous said...

It also won't be good for singles, particularly the young, if it drives up unemployment.

Unemployment is good inasmuch as it makes people understand the basic economic reality that guides their lives.

Of course, while we have welfare, there is little chance of people getting that understanding.

Manolo said...

The Dom Post knows no shame. It is manipulative to the extreme.

Home said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.