Sunday, October 11, 2020

2 workers for every 1 beneficiary


Roger Douglas writing at the NZCPR this week:

 For the next 40 years, the number of beneficiaries will grow rapidly, whilst the number of workers, in relative terms, will decline (from around 3 workers to every 1 beneficiary now, to around 1.66 workers to every beneficiary by 2060).

I think this may be a tad optimistic.

Broadly there are 1.2 million people on either a main benefit, student allowance or super (respectively 369,300 + 40,890 + 815,391.)

According to StatsNZ:

For the week ended 23 August 2020, the 34-day series shows there were 2.195 million paid jobs, compared with 2.200 million in the previous week.

2.2 workers to 1.2 beneficiaries.

More like 2:1

To use Douglas' terminology, 2 workers for every 1 beneficiary.

UPDATE

I raised this with Muriel Newman and she clarifies:

...I think it is a question of terminology.

Roger is calling superannuitants 'beneficiaries', so he is only talking about "the costs of delivering pensions and healthcare for the retired" - he's not including people on income support.

He sort of explains it is the first bit of the quote:

"Significantly, we have begun to enter a 30-40 year welfare maturity period, where the costs of delivering pensions and healthcare for the retired is going to rise dramatically, year on year. For the next 40 years, the number of beneficiaries will grow rapidly, whilst the number of workers, in relative terms, will decline (from around 3 workers to every 1 beneficiary now, to around 1.66 workers to every beneficiary by 2060)."

It would have been clearer if he had used the terminology we are used to:

"For the next 40 years, the number of the retired will grow rapidly, whilst the number of workers, in relative terms, will decline (from around 3 workers to every 1 pensioner now, to around 1.66 workers to every pensioner by 2060)."

I hope that clarifies the situation.

I misinterpreted his meaning because his two opening paragraphs used the phrases 'welfare benefits', 'welfare crisis' and 'welfare policy'.


No comments: