The headline reads, "Baby gets sick in crowded house".
It is now an established trend for young people to stay longer in the family home. It's happening in our family and I am fine with it. It makes sense due to various circumstances.
But if the young person then adds a partner, followed by children, it is inevitable that overcrowding is going to happen.
What I would like the media to decide is which is worse? Poverty - higher when housing costs consume a greater part of income - or overcrowding, which allows people to pool their resources.
Overcrowding actually alleviates poverty. So then the story has to be about how overcrowding makes people sick.
I have a suspicion that state houses are the cause of the problem - not the solution. Because they are cheap compared to private rentals families tend to congregate in them as well as on the grounds.
It may be that the son can't find a rental in Tauranga or that, compared to living with his mother in a cheap state house, he can't find anything 'affordable'.
Mum jailed for letting a 10 year old go for a walk
51 minutes ago
7 comments:
One cannot help but wonder however, if this dysfunctional ‘family’ is part of a growing underclass in New Zealand that is a downstream product of family breakdown and entitlement welfare. Yes, the son is in employment, but apparently not earning enough to afford housing for his partner and their child?
Look, we don’t know enough from this article to fully understand their circumstances but the grandmother is on a sickness benefit and recently became the legal guardian of two teenage grandchildren, we are not told why but again family breakdown is the most probable cause. Then she invited a friend with two children to live with them who were apparently living in a campsite, again we don’t know why but once again family breakdown is the probable cause.
When will our politicians ever regain the courage to state publically, that not all family structures produce the same outcomes?
Who of us believes that the bureaucratic welfare state has any answers for people like this?
From the newspaper article:
"In March, she gave up her own bedroom for her son, 27, his partner, 20, and their 16-month-old baby. The son works fulltime as a manager in Tauranga and had been unable to find a rental.
Earlier this year Charmaigne invited a friend, aged 32, and her friend's two children 13 and 5 to live with them."
So at the beginning of March Charmaigne's household numbered four. She then invited her son, partner, and baby to move in. Household now seven.
Charmaigne also invited a friend with two children to come and live with them. Household now ten!
This overcrowding seem to be self-inflicted, occurring it would appear, over the past three months.
When did the child's illness first manifest itself?
Doctors are very supportive of their patients generally, and willingly write letters seeking Government assistance. Other solutions, which may seem more obvious to those of us reading the newspaper article, are not part of Doctors' ambit.
Correction to my earlier comment - the household numbers began at five (not four) in a two bedroomed house, grew to eight, then eleven over the last three months.
The 18-year-old mother with the sick child does not want to return to that crowded house. Well it wasn't crowded at the beginning of March when she and the infant lived with just her mother and her mother's two teenaged (legal guardian) grandchildren.
Does Housing NZ not specify maximum occupancy of its dwellings?
The overcrowding was a conscious decision by the tenant.
There is no such thing as "overcrowding". There are people. There are rooms. That's it.
grew to eight, then eleven over the last three months.
GOOD! That is an economically efficient use of a resource - a taxpayers' resources, which is to say MY MONEY. If MY MONEY has to be used to house bludgers, better to house ten than one! If anything, we should immediately adopt the UK's bedroom tax and whack up the rental for every state house that has fewer than five people per bedroom...
part of a growing underclass in New Zealand that is a downstream product of family breakdown and entitlement welfare
family breakdown is caused by welfare. Welfare lets people get bored and leave. Without welfare, (where welfare includes state houses, state schools, state hospitals, and state super so no-one ever has to save) there would be no family breakdown
UKIP has just done what people thought impossible in the UK - and the UK is now out of the European Socialist Chapter and all the rest, so they can and will move finally and quickly against welfare there, against the "NHS" (the worlds largest socialist endeavour, bigger even then the People's Liberation Army, and of course staffed mailing by Immigrants which the UK has voted definitively against).
With any luck we could have an NZ Independence Party at the next election - lead by someone like Cameron Slater or Mike Hosting - that will return Independence to New Zealand by ending the socialist source of welfare once and for all.
If NZ had a referendum on welfare and immigration - NZ Independence would probably win - narrow like in the UK, but we would win!
AND: remember that the 'housing crisis" is caused be Welfare - particularly by Super. If people - even those who didn't really love their kids - had to pay for those kids' education and healthcare; if people had to save for their retirement; if divorce and kids didn't leave to the DPB and child benefit and CYFs and who knows what else - then there wouldn't be money to inflate house prices...
"Affordable" in my opinion is anything without a state subsidy. Sadly for our young workers a trip to Work and Income for their first introduction to welfare is now just about as normal as living with parents.
You should check to see if after charging your kid/s market rate rental or board if they qualify for a subsidy. You might be shocked at what you find, especially if you have a kid not in full time study but classed as independent of you...
(I'm only suggesting this as an academic exercise).
Sometimes charging offspring rent or board actually brings in more money to the household, and this is the case even when the adult(s) are on a core benefit and adjustments are made to take into consideration the additional rent.
"affordable" is the price at which the market clears. So long as houses sell, they are affordable to people who deserve them.
The fact of the matter is that Chinese businessmen or PLA officers deserve housing much more than non-achieving Kiwi WFF/DPB bludgers.
Post a Comment