"Reduce the proportion of children in low income households (before housing costs) from roughly 15 per cent of all children to 5 percent. This reduces the number by more than half from 160,000 to 60,000."
The threshold used to measure the proportion below is the median (the middle whereupon half fall below and half fall above).
The next measure, which establishes "low income", is arbitrary. It might be 50% of the median or - most commonly used internationally - 60% of the median.
The easiest way to reduce the proportion of children from "15 to 5 percent" is to lower the median.
With Labour's new workplace policies, that's not an unrealistic prospect.
This might also be naturally achieved with an ageing population who have increasingly not owned their own homes and will rely solely on Super.
If more childless families are poorer then the child poverty problem will reduce.
This target is bunkum.
NZCPR Newsletter: Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
19 minutes ago
4 comments:
Firstly, governments get into a write a strategy mode to solve a problem in their 3rd term when tired and smelly, not in their hundred days period of their first.
Secondly, I do not know about you, but I have never looked at the 50% poverty thresholds ever. I always judge progress by the 60% poverty threshold.
Median income relativity has been chosen as the measure of poverty for obvious ideological reasons - mathematically, the only way you can guarantee to reduce poverty using this measure is if everyone earns exactly the same.
What are the actual metrics for Labours child poverty figures?
Official child poverty data here.
http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/monitoring/household-incomes/index.html
Post a Comment