How do these people survive?
ONE Recently, when I went to Mc Donald's I saw on the menu that you could have an order of 6, 9 or 12 Chicken McNuggets. I asked for a half dozen nuggets. 'We don't have half dozen nuggets,' said the teenager at the counter. 'You don't?' I replied. 'We only have six, nine, or twelve,' was the reply. 'So I can't order a half dozen nuggets, but I can order six?' 'That's right.' So I shook my head and ordered six McNuggets
TWO I was checking out at the local Wal-Mart with just a few items and the lady behind me put her things on the belt close to mine. I picked up one of those 'dividers' that they keep by the cash register and placed it between our things so they wouldn't get mixed. After the girl had scanned all of my items, she picked up the 'divider', looking i t all over for the bar code so she could scan it. Not finding the code she said to me, 'Do you know how much this is?' I said to her 'I've changed my mind, I don't think I'll buy that today.' She said 'OK,' and I paid her for the things and left. She had no clue to what had just happened.
THREE A lady at work was seen putting a credit card into her floppy drive and pulling it out very quickly. When I inquired as to what she was doing, she said she was shopping on the Internet and they kept asking for a credit card number, so she was using the ATM 'thingy.'
FOUR I recently saw a distraught young lady weeping beside her car. 'Do you need some help?' I asked. She replied, 'I knew I should have replaced the battery to this remote door un-locker. Now I can't get into my car. Do you think they (pointing to a distant convenience store) would have a battery to fit this?' 'Hmmm, I dunno. Do you have an alarm, too?' I asked. 'No, just this remote thingy,' she answered, handing it and the car keys to me. As I took the key and manually unlocked the door, I replied, 'Why don't you drive over there and check about the batteries. It's a long walk.'
FIVE Several years ago, we had an Intern who was none too swift. One day she was typing and turned to a secretary and said, 'I'm almost out of typing paper. What do I do?' 'Just use copier machine paper,' the secretary told her. With that, the intern took her last remaining blank piece of paper, put it on the photocopier and proceeded to make five 'blank' copies.
SIX A mother calls 911 very worried asking the dispatcher if she needs to take her kid to the emergency room, the kid was eating ants. The dispatcher tells her to give the kid some Benadryl and should be fine, the mother says, I just gave him some ant killer..... Dispatcher: Rush him in to emergency!
Life is tough...
it's tougher if you're stupid.'
Friday, June 13, 2008
You can go too
I have seen no media reports about this. (Details here)
If Dyson wanted it in the news, it would be there.
Almost looks as if the government are trying to keep it quiet. Even NZ First hasn't been jumping up and down claiming credit. Perhaps they haven't been told. Or they aren't sharp enough to pick it up.
Perhaps the government is keeping it low key because they don't want superannuitants living overseas to start lodging claims for their increased entitlement.
But they should be making a big noise. If more superannuitants retired overseas the taxpayer could save a fortune on health and care services!
Seriously, with the rate young New Zealanders are leaving at, their parents will probably jump at the chance to follow them. Perhaps that's the political implication the government is trying to avoid being splashed all over the media.
"You can bugger off too!"
If Dyson wanted it in the news, it would be there.
Almost looks as if the government are trying to keep it quiet. Even NZ First hasn't been jumping up and down claiming credit. Perhaps they haven't been told. Or they aren't sharp enough to pick it up.
Perhaps the government is keeping it low key because they don't want superannuitants living overseas to start lodging claims for their increased entitlement.
But they should be making a big noise. If more superannuitants retired overseas the taxpayer could save a fortune on health and care services!
Seriously, with the rate young New Zealanders are leaving at, their parents will probably jump at the chance to follow them. Perhaps that's the political implication the government is trying to avoid being splashed all over the media.
"You can bugger off too!"
Vouchers villified. But why?
In Washington DC teacher unions are trying to stop a voucher system for the poorest black and Hispanic children. Yet 90 percent of parents are apparently very happy with the scheme. What's the problem?
Opponents claim there is no evidence that the D.C. scholarship program is raising academic achievement. The only study so far, funded by the federal Department of Education, found positive but "not statistically significant" improvements in reading and math scores after the first year. But education experts agree it takes a few years for results to start showing up. In other places that have vouchers, such as Milwaukee and Florida, test scores show notable improvement. A new study on charter schools in Los Angeles County finds big academic gains when families have expanded choices for educating their kids.
Does it cost more?
The $7,500 voucher is a bargain for taxpayers because it costs the public schools about 50% more, or $13,000 a year, to educate a child in the public schools.
Does it prevent choice?
Many of the parents we interviewed describe the vouchers as a "Godsend" or a "lifeline" for their sons and daughters. "Most of the politicians have choices on where to send their kids to school," says William Rush, Jr., who has two boys in the program. "Why do they want to take our choices away?"
Because just like New Zealand's teacher union and New Zealand's political left, the US unions are frightened that success in the private sector will mean parents abandon public schools. It's not about children and it's not about parents.
The teachers unions have put out the word to Congress that they want all vouchers for private schools that compete with their monopoly system shut down.
It's about unions protecting their patch, whether it grows weeds or prize winning pumpkins. ACT's education vouchers policy is anathema to monopolists (including National?). We will be pushing it with passion.
Opponents claim there is no evidence that the D.C. scholarship program is raising academic achievement. The only study so far, funded by the federal Department of Education, found positive but "not statistically significant" improvements in reading and math scores after the first year. But education experts agree it takes a few years for results to start showing up. In other places that have vouchers, such as Milwaukee and Florida, test scores show notable improvement. A new study on charter schools in Los Angeles County finds big academic gains when families have expanded choices for educating their kids.
Does it cost more?
The $7,500 voucher is a bargain for taxpayers because it costs the public schools about 50% more, or $13,000 a year, to educate a child in the public schools.
Does it prevent choice?
Many of the parents we interviewed describe the vouchers as a "Godsend" or a "lifeline" for their sons and daughters. "Most of the politicians have choices on where to send their kids to school," says William Rush, Jr., who has two boys in the program. "Why do they want to take our choices away?"
Because just like New Zealand's teacher union and New Zealand's political left, the US unions are frightened that success in the private sector will mean parents abandon public schools. It's not about children and it's not about parents.
The teachers unions have put out the word to Congress that they want all vouchers for private schools that compete with their monopoly system shut down.
It's about unions protecting their patch, whether it grows weeds or prize winning pumpkins. ACT's education vouchers policy is anathema to monopolists (including National?). We will be pushing it with passion.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Just desserts on both sides
A troublesome 16 year-old schoolboy promises to "shit on" his teacher's lawn and waits outside his home to ostensibly do just that. He waits on hour. The teacher arrives home and first checks his own children are OK. Then an argument develops between the two and the teacher punches the kid eight times. The teacher is prosecuted, given diversion and sent on an anger management course. He was demoted and ultimately fined by the Teacher's Council.
When I try to think about such a case, acknowledging all I know is what the media discloses (How badly hurt was the boy? What were his previous misdemeanours?), I find it useful to put my own players in the picture. My 14 year-old and a teacher for instance. Notwithstanding I am finding it almost impossible to imagine him in this scenario (but teenagers can go off the rails very quickly and kind, patient teachers can be pushed beyond their limits) I feel some sympathy with both parties.
The teacher's reaction is over the top but it is a rare man or woman who hasn't "snapped" at some point in their personal or professional lives. The problem lies in how the explosion manifests. In my younger days, I clearly remember hitting a bathroom wall so hard once I bruised by fist. I have never hit a person. And there seems to be something "missing" when a person hits someone repeatedly rather than taking their enormous anger and frustration out on something inanimate or simply turning their back and walking away. The teacher may have tried the second and been further provoked. We don't know.
As for the youth, if my son was carrying on like this I would think he was off his trolley. That he was in need of help possibly beyond that I could provide. I don't accept threats of that nature and waiting outside someone's home are just "infantile" pranks.
What I really, really, really want to know is, did the teacher's actions make an impression on this boy? Did they make his behaviour better or worse? I suspect that the father may have nullified any positive effect. I would have been very "agitated" if my son had been punched eight times but I wouldn't be making excuses for him. I would be telling him that he just learned a valuable lesson about human nature. Based on the degree of provocation I probably wouldn't have pressed assault charges. But no account seems to be taken of provocation these days. Especially if it is female provocation of a male.
Based on what we do know I am happy that the teacher was allowed to continue in his job. Violence is never desirable but if it had been 'horrendous' I doubt the man would still be teaching. We need all the male teachers we can get.
When I try to think about such a case, acknowledging all I know is what the media discloses (How badly hurt was the boy? What were his previous misdemeanours?), I find it useful to put my own players in the picture. My 14 year-old and a teacher for instance. Notwithstanding I am finding it almost impossible to imagine him in this scenario (but teenagers can go off the rails very quickly and kind, patient teachers can be pushed beyond their limits) I feel some sympathy with both parties.
The teacher's reaction is over the top but it is a rare man or woman who hasn't "snapped" at some point in their personal or professional lives. The problem lies in how the explosion manifests. In my younger days, I clearly remember hitting a bathroom wall so hard once I bruised by fist. I have never hit a person. And there seems to be something "missing" when a person hits someone repeatedly rather than taking their enormous anger and frustration out on something inanimate or simply turning their back and walking away. The teacher may have tried the second and been further provoked. We don't know.
As for the youth, if my son was carrying on like this I would think he was off his trolley. That he was in need of help possibly beyond that I could provide. I don't accept threats of that nature and waiting outside someone's home are just "infantile" pranks.
What I really, really, really want to know is, did the teacher's actions make an impression on this boy? Did they make his behaviour better or worse? I suspect that the father may have nullified any positive effect. I would have been very "agitated" if my son had been punched eight times but I wouldn't be making excuses for him. I would be telling him that he just learned a valuable lesson about human nature. Based on the degree of provocation I probably wouldn't have pressed assault charges. But no account seems to be taken of provocation these days. Especially if it is female provocation of a male.
Based on what we do know I am happy that the teacher was allowed to continue in his job. Violence is never desirable but if it had been 'horrendous' I doubt the man would still be teaching. We need all the male teachers we can get.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Silly advice
From the NZ Herald editorial today,
Act, however, must campaign in a way that does not make life difficult for National. Sir Roger and his economic programme may be its chief branding weapon, but it must recognise that every vote lost by National diminishes its own chances of being in government.
What bollocks. ACT has to campaign hard on its ideas and plans. National can take care of itself. Winning matters. This is an election campaign. It isn't kiddies sport where it's the "taking part that counts". ACT doesn't exist to be a bit-player to National. Increasingly the two parties have less in common but it isn't ACT that has moved away from its founding principles. The most important message ACT has for New Zealanders is that a mere change in government will not change the direction of this country. The more MPs ACT has, the more real change we can effect.
Act, however, must campaign in a way that does not make life difficult for National. Sir Roger and his economic programme may be its chief branding weapon, but it must recognise that every vote lost by National diminishes its own chances of being in government.
What bollocks. ACT has to campaign hard on its ideas and plans. National can take care of itself. Winning matters. This is an election campaign. It isn't kiddies sport where it's the "taking part that counts". ACT doesn't exist to be a bit-player to National. Increasingly the two parties have less in common but it isn't ACT that has moved away from its founding principles. The most important message ACT has for New Zealanders is that a mere change in government will not change the direction of this country. The more MPs ACT has, the more real change we can effect.
Reality
A comment from yesterday,
The rate of crime is a function of the profits divided by the chance of being caught or killed.
Also yesterday my mother rang to tell me that whilst he is in hospital recovering from open heart surgery, my brother's house has been burgled.
The police have not attended and there is nobody available yet to take fingerprints.
The rate of crime is a function of the profits divided by the chance of being caught or killed.
Also yesterday my mother rang to tell me that whilst he is in hospital recovering from open heart surgery, my brother's house has been burgled.
The police have not attended and there is nobody available yet to take fingerprints.
Fooling fools
Yesterday I had just read a piece by Roger Kerr in the Dominion Post about the futility of Cullen's tax cuts - "Clayton's cuts" - when I glanced down and saw this.
What followed was one of those 'pass me a bucket' moments.
"The Inland Revenue plays a critical role in improving the economic and social well being of all New Zealanders."
Since when??? The role of the IRD is to collect tax - no more, no less.
Oh get with it Lindsay. The IRD is now a key player in redistributing income to 'needy' families. It is the WINZ of the middle class. And we all know how much Work and Income contributes to well being by the number of security men they employ.
But this is an ad for an Investigator. Not a plunket nurse.
"Serving as an Investigator is highly rewarding through the contribution it makes to improve our customers' understanding of, and compliance with tax and social policy laws."
Seriously now, this is disgusting and scary stuff. If you ever struggle to envisage big government, this is it. First the IRD has recast itself into a so-called social organisation with one of the "largest workforces in New Zealand," when all it should be doing it collecting tax. If we had flat tax most of this workforce could be doing something productive instead of being the monkeys on the back of the engine house.
But almost worse than the size of this monolith is the language it uses to fool itself and the public into regarding it as a bastion of beneficence. In truth most people would behold the visit of an Investigator with great trepidation. We wouldn't be putting on the kettle in anticipation of a nice chat.
We've got to wake up in this country. All big government is good for is producing make-work jobs and make-believe descriptions. Voting National won't put an end to this sort of nonsense.
What followed was one of those 'pass me a bucket' moments.
"The Inland Revenue plays a critical role in improving the economic and social well being of all New Zealanders."
Since when??? The role of the IRD is to collect tax - no more, no less.
Oh get with it Lindsay. The IRD is now a key player in redistributing income to 'needy' families. It is the WINZ of the middle class. And we all know how much Work and Income contributes to well being by the number of security men they employ.
But this is an ad for an Investigator. Not a plunket nurse.
"Serving as an Investigator is highly rewarding through the contribution it makes to improve our customers' understanding of, and compliance with tax and social policy laws."
Seriously now, this is disgusting and scary stuff. If you ever struggle to envisage big government, this is it. First the IRD has recast itself into a so-called social organisation with one of the "largest workforces in New Zealand," when all it should be doing it collecting tax. If we had flat tax most of this workforce could be doing something productive instead of being the monkeys on the back of the engine house.
But almost worse than the size of this monolith is the language it uses to fool itself and the public into regarding it as a bastion of beneficence. In truth most people would behold the visit of an Investigator with great trepidation. We wouldn't be putting on the kettle in anticipation of a nice chat.
We've got to wake up in this country. All big government is good for is producing make-work jobs and make-believe descriptions. Voting National won't put an end to this sort of nonsense.
Monday, June 09, 2008
What now?
Can anybody imagine the grief or anger of the relatives of Navtej Singh.
In the Dominion Post there are pictures of the family of the polish tramper who lost his life just over the hills from us last week. Their pain is palpable; their faces crumple. But he lost his life because of an accident. He was pursuing his passion.
What of poor Mr Singh? Only 30. Gunned down by someone who values booze more than life, or at least someone else's life. Who will step up to make excuses for the murderer? Some bleeding heart counsel will no doubt make submissions about upbringing, poverty and more generically, skin colour. There is every possibility Mr Singh also came from an impoverished background and his race have experienced disproportionate poverty. But he was a worker. He was trying to make a crust legitimately - as far as we know.
He must have thought about the possibility of violent robbery. May have even experienced it before. He must have consciously decided that he would follow police advice and submit to the violation. He took a calculated risk, not just by choosing this course of action but by the very act of living and working in what is purportedly a dangerous area. He lost the gamble. Who to blame?
Where are the liberal left who remonstrate against apportioning blame? It's not about blaming someone, they say. The problems in South Auckland are systemic, they say. It's the gap between rich and poor driving violent crime. But there wasn't much of a gap between the perpetrator and the victim, was there?
And what next for the police? Don't defend yourselves they say. Call us. Too late. But where were you anyway? A neighbourhood as dangerous as this needs a constance presence. What am I saying. If there was a constant police presence this wouldn't have happened. If the neighbours are too terrified to speak because of gang recriminations the police are probably too scared to police.
I am sick at the state of parts of this country. I am sick at poor people being victims of other poor people who have lost all traces of humanity. But mostly I am sick of our seeming inability to deal with them. RIP Navtej Singh. I am sorry.
In the Dominion Post there are pictures of the family of the polish tramper who lost his life just over the hills from us last week. Their pain is palpable; their faces crumple. But he lost his life because of an accident. He was pursuing his passion.
What of poor Mr Singh? Only 30. Gunned down by someone who values booze more than life, or at least someone else's life. Who will step up to make excuses for the murderer? Some bleeding heart counsel will no doubt make submissions about upbringing, poverty and more generically, skin colour. There is every possibility Mr Singh also came from an impoverished background and his race have experienced disproportionate poverty. But he was a worker. He was trying to make a crust legitimately - as far as we know.
He must have thought about the possibility of violent robbery. May have even experienced it before. He must have consciously decided that he would follow police advice and submit to the violation. He took a calculated risk, not just by choosing this course of action but by the very act of living and working in what is purportedly a dangerous area. He lost the gamble. Who to blame?
Where are the liberal left who remonstrate against apportioning blame? It's not about blaming someone, they say. The problems in South Auckland are systemic, they say. It's the gap between rich and poor driving violent crime. But there wasn't much of a gap between the perpetrator and the victim, was there?
And what next for the police? Don't defend yourselves they say. Call us. Too late. But where were you anyway? A neighbourhood as dangerous as this needs a constance presence. What am I saying. If there was a constant police presence this wouldn't have happened. If the neighbours are too terrified to speak because of gang recriminations the police are probably too scared to police.
I am sick at the state of parts of this country. I am sick at poor people being victims of other poor people who have lost all traces of humanity. But mostly I am sick of our seeming inability to deal with them. RIP Navtej Singh. I am sorry.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Poor Expectations
Sometimes numbers just breeze right past me. Then I do a double-take and think twice. One such number just presented itself in a reply to a written question from Judith Collins to the Minister of Social Development.
3,099 clients aged 16-17 years receive a main benefit (excluding partners).
There are around 120,000 16-17 year-olds. That means more than 1 in 40 is on a benefit. That's like one in a large school class. Hell, that's a lot. And it doesn't auger well for the future because many are just starting on a lifetime habit.
Yesterday a friend sent me some research from the University of British Colombia which shows that availability of welfare encourages kids to leave school.
Bill Warburton had observed that the dropout rate for children at risk of receiving income assistance rose with B.C.'s welfare caseload through the early 1990s and fell when a substantial package of welfare reforms was introduced Jan. 1, 1996, which removed about 100,000 people from the welfare rolls.
Using data from the B.C. ministries of education and employment and income assistance, Warburton found that when the New Democrats began a program of welfare reform in the mid-1990s, high school dropout rates began to fall and continued to fall for several years.
Arguably the most important aspect of welfare reform is it wards off those who would otherwise have become enmeshed. It makes them consider better options.
A good chunk of those NZ 16 and 17 year-olds on welfare are either pregnant and on a sickness benefit or a teenage mum and on the emergency maintenance allowance. Until the system changes expectations the problem-producing benefit lifestyle will continue unabated.
3,099 clients aged 16-17 years receive a main benefit (excluding partners).
There are around 120,000 16-17 year-olds. That means more than 1 in 40 is on a benefit. That's like one in a large school class. Hell, that's a lot. And it doesn't auger well for the future because many are just starting on a lifetime habit.
Yesterday a friend sent me some research from the University of British Colombia which shows that availability of welfare encourages kids to leave school.
Bill Warburton had observed that the dropout rate for children at risk of receiving income assistance rose with B.C.'s welfare caseload through the early 1990s and fell when a substantial package of welfare reforms was introduced Jan. 1, 1996, which removed about 100,000 people from the welfare rolls.
Using data from the B.C. ministries of education and employment and income assistance, Warburton found that when the New Democrats began a program of welfare reform in the mid-1990s, high school dropout rates began to fall and continued to fall for several years.
Arguably the most important aspect of welfare reform is it wards off those who would otherwise have become enmeshed. It makes them consider better options.
A good chunk of those NZ 16 and 17 year-olds on welfare are either pregnant and on a sickness benefit or a teenage mum and on the emergency maintenance allowance. Until the system changes expectations the problem-producing benefit lifestyle will continue unabated.
Books
That's put me over my limit. Can I manage two whole books in one year? I can generally get through one. Last year it was Rodney Hide's highly readable biography.
But last week I purchased Bob Jones', Jones on Management which is very good. In fact I may finish it today. I read a good chunk last night whilst not watching the All Blacks.
And tomorrow I will buy Michael Bassett's latest, Working With David. This piece has further whet my appetite.
From the start, the clandestine affair between the married prime minister and his speechwriter aroused feelings of foreboding among his staff.
It was "like a crow on your shoulder all the time, because you're never quite sure when it's going to shit on you", former Lange press officer Ross Vintiner told historian Dr Michael Bassett.
Jolly good. This promises to be a book that goes deep into the ways in which relationships affect thinking. The too real overlay of human frailty on political actions that reach out across populations and time.
But last week I purchased Bob Jones', Jones on Management which is very good. In fact I may finish it today. I read a good chunk last night whilst not watching the All Blacks.
And tomorrow I will buy Michael Bassett's latest, Working With David. This piece has further whet my appetite.From the start, the clandestine affair between the married prime minister and his speechwriter aroused feelings of foreboding among his staff.
It was "like a crow on your shoulder all the time, because you're never quite sure when it's going to shit on you", former Lange press officer Ross Vintiner told historian Dr Michael Bassett.
Jolly good. This promises to be a book that goes deep into the ways in which relationships affect thinking. The too real overlay of human frailty on political actions that reach out across populations and time.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Street preventing choice and efficiency
The view of the author is that the privatisation process delivered benefits to:
• ACC by creating a more efficient and focused organisation,
• the overall scheme by properly defining the entitlements,
• insurers who made profits from the experience,
• employers by reducing premium rates,
• employees overall through improved rehabilitation and reduction in injury rates.
That is an excerpt from a review of the Privatisation of New Zealand
Accident Insurance Workplace Cover 1999/2000.
ACC Minister Maryan Street, who loathes the idea of competition and profit, is harassing National over any policy to re-privatise employers accounts. What caught my eye was her snide and petulant claim that National was simply "lining the pockets of their insurance company mates.”
Now that really is a fine example of the 'politics of envy' and what turns thinking people off Labour.
• ACC by creating a more efficient and focused organisation,
• the overall scheme by properly defining the entitlements,
• insurers who made profits from the experience,
• employers by reducing premium rates,
• employees overall through improved rehabilitation and reduction in injury rates.
That is an excerpt from a review of the Privatisation of New Zealand
Accident Insurance Workplace Cover 1999/2000.
ACC Minister Maryan Street, who loathes the idea of competition and profit, is harassing National over any policy to re-privatise employers accounts. What caught my eye was her snide and petulant claim that National was simply "lining the pockets of their insurance company mates.”
Now that really is a fine example of the 'politics of envy' and what turns thinking people off Labour.
Friday, June 06, 2008
National's nineties record on welfare
A commenter from yesterday disagreed with my statement that National's recent record of getting people into the workforce is worse than Labour's.
The anonymous commenter says;
Again wrong. The single best effort here is Ruth Richardson in 1990 - all else pales beside this.
There seems to be a misapprehension about what National achieved during the nineties in respect of dealing to unemployment and general welfare dependence.
For the period 1990 to 1999 (October) the unemployment benefit numbers went from 139,625 to 143,707 peaking in 1992/93 at around 170,000.
Numbers on all other benefits continued to rise through the same period.
DPB 94,823 to 110,315
Sickness 19,511 to 33,043
Invalid 27,824 to 57,127
We all know that numbers on the unemployment benefit have plunged under Labour. Yes, they have enjoyed strong economic conditions in spite of their increasing regulation and interference. Yes, their achievements in respect of the DPB have been rather pathetic. Yes, there is a very real problem with the growth in the invalid's and sickness benefit, some of which represents what the OECD calls the "medicalisation of labour market problems."
But don't try and tell me National was a world beater at reducing benefit dependence because it simply isn't true.
The anonymous commenter says;
Again wrong. The single best effort here is Ruth Richardson in 1990 - all else pales beside this.
There seems to be a misapprehension about what National achieved during the nineties in respect of dealing to unemployment and general welfare dependence.
For the period 1990 to 1999 (October) the unemployment benefit numbers went from 139,625 to 143,707 peaking in 1992/93 at around 170,000.
Numbers on all other benefits continued to rise through the same period.
DPB 94,823 to 110,315
Sickness 19,511 to 33,043
Invalid 27,824 to 57,127
We all know that numbers on the unemployment benefit have plunged under Labour. Yes, they have enjoyed strong economic conditions in spite of their increasing regulation and interference. Yes, their achievements in respect of the DPB have been rather pathetic. Yes, there is a very real problem with the growth in the invalid's and sickness benefit, some of which represents what the OECD calls the "medicalisation of labour market problems."
But don't try and tell me National was a world beater at reducing benefit dependence because it simply isn't true.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
The "major difference between Labour and National"
John Key was in Taranaki last night talking to supporters;
''I personally believe we're going to win the next election,'' he told the packed conference room.
New Zealanders could see the one major difference between the Labour and National, he told them.
While National's were the politics of aspiration, Labour believed in the politics of envy and it was not taking them anywhere, he said to hearty clapping.
This is the Nats election catch cry. I first heard it from Mark Blumsky sitting on the Face Off panel on NewstalkZB. (Slightly ironic it should come from a disillusioned one-term MP)
I can't disagree that Labour is besmirched with envy politics. A disdain for "rich pricks" and discomfit with private success seems to have gathered momentum this year.
But is National really "aspirational"? It's one thing to lay claim to a moniker but breathing substance into it is another.
There is a world of difference between the two types of worldviews but there is not a world of difference between what happens in New Zealand when either a Labour or National government reigns. I know National-supporting bloggers have listed differences but I can never remember what they are. Not a good sign.
What should a government be aspiring to? Surely to lift New Zealand's comparative economic standing in the world would rank right up there. But we haven't seen the Nats commit themselves to achieving the rate of economic growth it would take.
It is broadly accepted that education is the key to prosperity and independence but National are happy to largely preserve the status quo with the abandonment of their earlier bulk-funding policy and retention of elitist zoning. Meanwhile literacy declines.
It is best practice to let the private sector run services yet the Nats have run a mile from privatisation.
And Working For Families might help people in the short term but it traps them in the long. It is the very antithesis of aspiration. Yet the Nats will keep it.
So what am I left to think? That the so-called "major difference between National and Labour" - the politics of aspiration over the politics of envy - is nothing more than a seductive slogan.
''I personally believe we're going to win the next election,'' he told the packed conference room.
New Zealanders could see the one major difference between the Labour and National, he told them.
While National's were the politics of aspiration, Labour believed in the politics of envy and it was not taking them anywhere, he said to hearty clapping.
This is the Nats election catch cry. I first heard it from Mark Blumsky sitting on the Face Off panel on NewstalkZB. (Slightly ironic it should come from a disillusioned one-term MP)
I can't disagree that Labour is besmirched with envy politics. A disdain for "rich pricks" and discomfit with private success seems to have gathered momentum this year.
But is National really "aspirational"? It's one thing to lay claim to a moniker but breathing substance into it is another.
There is a world of difference between the two types of worldviews but there is not a world of difference between what happens in New Zealand when either a Labour or National government reigns. I know National-supporting bloggers have listed differences but I can never remember what they are. Not a good sign.
What should a government be aspiring to? Surely to lift New Zealand's comparative economic standing in the world would rank right up there. But we haven't seen the Nats commit themselves to achieving the rate of economic growth it would take.
It is broadly accepted that education is the key to prosperity and independence but National are happy to largely preserve the status quo with the abandonment of their earlier bulk-funding policy and retention of elitist zoning. Meanwhile literacy declines.
It is best practice to let the private sector run services yet the Nats have run a mile from privatisation.
And Working For Families might help people in the short term but it traps them in the long. It is the very antithesis of aspiration. Yet the Nats will keep it.
So what am I left to think? That the so-called "major difference between National and Labour" - the politics of aspiration over the politics of envy - is nothing more than a seductive slogan.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Begging for regulation
Outrageous.
How should unhealthy food be regulated?
Ban advertising during children's TV (1658 votes, 23.4%)
Ban sports sponsorships (166 votes, 2.3%)
Label junk food (624 votes, 8.8%)
Tax junk food (898 votes, 12.7%)
Nothing - what we eat is a personal choice (3745 votes, 52.8%)
Now I ask you. How can what we eat be a personal choice?? It is the responsibility of the state to direct our diets. Everybody knows people are too stupid to look in the mirror and make any connection between too much KFC and being blobby. Last time I had a piece of KFC the fat it was cooked in dripped down my chin. DRIPPED DOWN MY CHIN. What we need is a Ministry of Mustn't Eat. It should be tasked with educating people that just like school choice and health choice, food choice is too much of a responsibility to be shouldered by the individual. It makes no sense for the state to own your life and your money and not your body too. We should all be grateful that those with better instincts than ours are preparing to step in and relieve us of our last vestiges of autonomy.
Bugger the majority.
How should unhealthy food be regulated?
Ban advertising during children's TV (1658 votes, 23.4%)
Ban sports sponsorships (166 votes, 2.3%)
Label junk food (624 votes, 8.8%)
Tax junk food (898 votes, 12.7%)
Nothing - what we eat is a personal choice (3745 votes, 52.8%)
Now I ask you. How can what we eat be a personal choice?? It is the responsibility of the state to direct our diets. Everybody knows people are too stupid to look in the mirror and make any connection between too much KFC and being blobby. Last time I had a piece of KFC the fat it was cooked in dripped down my chin. DRIPPED DOWN MY CHIN. What we need is a Ministry of Mustn't Eat. It should be tasked with educating people that just like school choice and health choice, food choice is too much of a responsibility to be shouldered by the individual. It makes no sense for the state to own your life and your money and not your body too. We should all be grateful that those with better instincts than ours are preparing to step in and relieve us of our last vestiges of autonomy.
Bugger the majority.
Yes or no?
My mother was a teacher. She had a habit (and still does) of pulling me up on grammatical errors. A favourite was my misuse of the word 'borrow' when I meant 'lend'.
But one I always got her on is using a double negative. And it's very common. People will often fall into the trap by making a negative statement and then tacking "I don't think" on the end. So what is all this nit-picking about?
A report about Rodney Hide's Regulatory Responsibility left me struggling to draw a conclusion with this statement;
However the commerce select committee said it did not think the bill would not work as it would create legal headaches.
Perhaps we can find out exactly what is happening to this bill today when Rodney takes Leighton Smith's place for the morning as talkback host on NewstalkZB.
For Wellington and Christchurch listeners live-streaming is available here. Select Auckland.
But one I always got her on is using a double negative. And it's very common. People will often fall into the trap by making a negative statement and then tacking "I don't think" on the end. So what is all this nit-picking about?
A report about Rodney Hide's Regulatory Responsibility left me struggling to draw a conclusion with this statement;
However the commerce select committee said it did not think the bill would not work as it would create legal headaches.
Perhaps we can find out exactly what is happening to this bill today when Rodney takes Leighton Smith's place for the morning as talkback host on NewstalkZB.
For Wellington and Christchurch listeners live-streaming is available here. Select Auckland.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Effects of raising benefits
This is a summary of some of the research into the effects of increasing benefit payment rates. It is from the Colorado Independence Institute during the early 90s. AFDC was the US equivalent of the DPB.
Though the issue is contested, many researchers believe there is a direct link between welfare and illegitimacy, and therefore a long-run link between welfare and crime. For example, a study by M. Anne Hill and June O'Neill (currently director of the Congressional Budget Office) found that a 50 percent increase in afdc and food stamp benefits led to a 75 percent increase in the number of women enrolling in these programs, a sharp rise in the number of years spent on afdc, a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births, and a 117 percent increase in crimes perpetrated by young black males. Researchers from the University of Washington found that a difference of $228 in monthly welfare benefits more than doubled a white teenager's probability of bearing an illegitimate child. Other U.S. and Canadian investigations show that even small increases in welfare benefits raise the odds of women going on welfare and becoming single parents. Roughly half the increase in black illegitimacy since the mid-1960s can be attributed to increased welfare benefits and easier eligibility standards, according to Hill and O'Neill.
Though the issue is contested, many researchers believe there is a direct link between welfare and illegitimacy, and therefore a long-run link between welfare and crime. For example, a study by M. Anne Hill and June O'Neill (currently director of the Congressional Budget Office) found that a 50 percent increase in afdc and food stamp benefits led to a 75 percent increase in the number of women enrolling in these programs, a sharp rise in the number of years spent on afdc, a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births, and a 117 percent increase in crimes perpetrated by young black males. Researchers from the University of Washington found that a difference of $228 in monthly welfare benefits more than doubled a white teenager's probability of bearing an illegitimate child. Other U.S. and Canadian investigations show that even small increases in welfare benefits raise the odds of women going on welfare and becoming single parents. Roughly half the increase in black illegitimacy since the mid-1960s can be attributed to increased welfare benefits and easier eligibility standards, according to Hill and O'Neill.
Removing any incentive to work
According to the Dominion Post today a solo mother with two children on the domestic purposes benefit received $23,000 net a year - less than 55 per cent of the average income...
Currently working a 40 hour week on the minimum wage nets $24,960; a 30 hour week $18,720. The effective rate of taxation on earned income is slightly higher than on the benefit sum.
So it is easy to see why moving from a benefit to a low wage job is not "worth it".
Now if the In Work payment was added the net benefit income would rise to $25-26,000 - more than working a 40 hour week on the minimum wage.
People used to work because they had a work ethic. They wanted to pull their weight and be seen to be independent. Poor but proud. Today many will only work if it is financially advantageous. The government has to work with that reality. The CPAG wants to ignore it.
Currently working a 40 hour week on the minimum wage nets $24,960; a 30 hour week $18,720. The effective rate of taxation on earned income is slightly higher than on the benefit sum.
So it is easy to see why moving from a benefit to a low wage job is not "worth it".
Now if the In Work payment was added the net benefit income would rise to $25-26,000 - more than working a 40 hour week on the minimum wage.
People used to work because they had a work ethic. They wanted to pull their weight and be seen to be independent. Poor but proud. Today many will only work if it is financially advantageous. The government has to work with that reality. The CPAG wants to ignore it.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Discrimination?
The Child Poverty Action Group begins its case against the government tomorrow. They want the In Work payment (now In Work Tax Credit) paid to beneficiary families as well. They claim the exclusion of beneficiary families is discriminatory.
This is my argument against the CPAG (repeated);
If the CPAG win, essentially we will see an increase in benefit levels. An increase in benefit levels leads to an increase in the number of people going on or staying on benefits. CPAG want a short term gain and refuse to see the long term cost which cannot be in the best interests of children.
There is no guarantee the money reaches the children anyway.
And, most obviously, the incentive effect of the In-Work payment will be nullified if it is extended to non-working families.
The Greens and the Maori Party are supporting the CPAG.
Who is going to win? We have seen the Ministry of Social Development forced to settle out of court previously for discriminating against a single male parent who had full custody of a child (the mother had full custody of the other child/ren) by not allowing him to be on the DPB. But in this case, should the government lose, there would be a significant financial impact. Around $3-400 million more would be paid to parents on benefits. (From the beneficiaries point of view that's about a 14 percent pay rise.)
Beneficiaries already receive family support for each child. It varies according to age and ranges from $57 to $95 per week. Payments increased in April 2005 and April 2007. I wonder if I could take a case to the Human Rights Tribunal claiming discrimination because I do not receive these payments?
Or, more to the point, perhaps I should try discrimination on the grounds that I do not receive the In Work tax credit. The government has set arbitrary conditions on who receives them. The one that excludes me is an income test. The one that excludes beneficiaries is a work test. If the CPAG can get the work test removed perhaps I can get the income test removed.
UPDATE: A couple of months back I put out a media release about the CPAG being "at loggerheads with the OECD" on the matter of what strategy is most effective in reducing child poverty. I was pleased to read in the Dominion Post this morning that the government will be calling two representatives from the OECD as witnesses in its defence against the CPAG.
This is my argument against the CPAG (repeated);
If the CPAG win, essentially we will see an increase in benefit levels. An increase in benefit levels leads to an increase in the number of people going on or staying on benefits. CPAG want a short term gain and refuse to see the long term cost which cannot be in the best interests of children.
There is no guarantee the money reaches the children anyway.
And, most obviously, the incentive effect of the In-Work payment will be nullified if it is extended to non-working families.
The Greens and the Maori Party are supporting the CPAG.
Who is going to win? We have seen the Ministry of Social Development forced to settle out of court previously for discriminating against a single male parent who had full custody of a child (the mother had full custody of the other child/ren) by not allowing him to be on the DPB. But in this case, should the government lose, there would be a significant financial impact. Around $3-400 million more would be paid to parents on benefits. (From the beneficiaries point of view that's about a 14 percent pay rise.)
Beneficiaries already receive family support for each child. It varies according to age and ranges from $57 to $95 per week. Payments increased in April 2005 and April 2007. I wonder if I could take a case to the Human Rights Tribunal claiming discrimination because I do not receive these payments?
Or, more to the point, perhaps I should try discrimination on the grounds that I do not receive the In Work tax credit. The government has set arbitrary conditions on who receives them. The one that excludes me is an income test. The one that excludes beneficiaries is a work test. If the CPAG can get the work test removed perhaps I can get the income test removed.
UPDATE: A couple of months back I put out a media release about the CPAG being "at loggerheads with the OECD" on the matter of what strategy is most effective in reducing child poverty. I was pleased to read in the Dominion Post this morning that the government will be calling two representatives from the OECD as witnesses in its defence against the CPAG.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Mad Matt
What a load of codswallop from Matt McCarten today. If he was right about ACT than I would be an utter misfit. I would never have been placed on last election's list, let alone within cooey of becoming an MP. First he launches into the Business Roundtable;Its ideology is quite simple: we're all essentially greedy and we should be free to make as much money as we can. If we exploit others in the process - well, that's just the free market at work. Now it seems Labour may be defeated this year, it appears to be getting ready to get back into the driving seat. No doubt it would have been behind the recent manoeuvre to bring Douglas back into Act.
We are all essentially self-interested. Greed and self-interest are completely different things. They produce different outcomes. The NZBR would concur with Adam Smith's defence of self-interest. In a personal sense I am self-interested. Those things that matter most to me are to be protected and cared for or I will become unhappy. I am protecting my own interests when I protect those of my children, family and friends. Business is the same. Self interest in one's own business success requires creating an environment where everyone employed or traded with is gaining something. When exploitation occurs - personally or professioally - unhappiness and failure result.
The NZBR is behind Roger Douglas's re-emergence? The person behind Roger's re-emergence is Roger. I am sure some people have been persuaded to stand for ACT indirectly via the NZBR simply because they promote (very well) sound ideas similar to those ACT promotes. We share the philosophy of individualism. This grand plan conspiratorial stuff is just self-gratification of the loopy left temperament.
It would have been devastated when John Key, a moderate, took out Don Brash as leader. Therefore it had to resort to a Plan B and coax decrepit Douglas out of retirement. With the support of his Roundtable cronies, Douglas is now effectively co-leader of the Act Party. I'm wary of political ideologues who claim our economic and social ills can only be cured if we adopt their plan. Apparently, Douglas and Act have a new 20-point plan. Most of us are probably tempted to roll our eyes about this nuttiness. But don't think they are harmless fruitcakes.
So what's your plan Matt? Drive New Zealand right off the bottom rung of the OECD ladder? All pre-election policy is a plan. Could we have some credit for being transparent about ours? No. I didn't think so. Because that blows another right-wing conspiratorial theory - the cloak and dagger hidden-agenda one. That's the one you now save for John Key.
Unfortunately for the far right, there is a major block to their success - the Maori Party......Therefore it should be no surprise the Business Roundtable released research it has sponsored which runs along the supposedly reasonable line that as we now have MMP, the Maori seats are unnecessary and allow a disproportionate number of Maori in parliament. Funny how the Roundtable didn't produce a report about the over-representation of white males in parliament.
.....The Business Roundtable doesn't give a fig about the role of Maori - good or bad. The report is merely propaganda to influence the public so National sticks with its promise to hold a referendum on Maori seats. Ask our country's 86 per cent non-Maori population if these seats should remain and the answer is a foregone conclusion. They will go, as the Roundtable intends.
This has nothing to do with Maori. It's the far right removing obstacles so it can get in a government it can influence to finish off the neo-conservative agenda begun in 1984.
That the NZBR (and by implication ACT) "doesn't give a fig about the role of Maori" is a ugly misinterpretation. One can care about people as individuals without agreeing to tribalist, collectivist notions and practices. That is the most important concept and maybe Matt McCarten just can't comprehend it. If New Zealand prospers (and prosperity is undeniably linked to freedom, not government) the people who will experience the greatest improvement in the quality of life are those who currently have the least.
Matt, if you are right, and the Business Roundtable and ACT are run by 'greedy, white, rich men' wouldn't they also be of the selfish 'I'm- alright- Jack ilk?' Why would they be spending their time and energy and MONEY bothering with ideas, philosophy and politics? Especially in their 60s and 70s. It doesn't stack up Matt.
I wish
From an interview with the Sunday Star Times,Brash says while he was largely happy with National's policy platform in 2005, seeing it as a necessary compromise, he wonders whether he might have gained more votes campaigning as a conviction politician.
We will never know. But it's not too late to have another go Don. All you need is people around you who share the convictions you hold about what is needed to turn this country around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
