Sam's sketching

Sam, my 12 year-old daughter, has been sketching. I like what she does. The combination of hatching and sureness of line. She is into stars of the past. Here's one of Audrey Hepburn.



And Robert has delighted me lately with his dedication to practising the piano, sometimes 3-4 hours a day. In the holidays he used some of a small inheritance from his Nana to buy a Gulbransen, built during the prohibition in Chicago (I wish it could talk) to play his ragtime and boogie on. It was built to be loud for entertainment pre-amplification. It is certainly that but I never tire of hearing him progressing.

His 'dignity' has been returned to him

Am I surprised?

Mr Wells, the 'artist' who promotes the dignity of using the dole to reduce consumption, has had his benefit re-instated. This will probably include late payment of any entitlement he missed.

He also has a partner whose benefit is being similarly re-instated.

Apparently the Ministry did not observe correct procedures.

Clearly it is OK to be receiving a fee from Creative New Zealand, Wellington City Council and collecting the dole.

By coincidence I had just been reading the MSD Annual Report released yesterday. In it they make a huge song and dance about performance integrity and meeting objectives;


It is important New Zealanders have trust and confidence in how we deliver income support to people.

Yeah right.

(Mr Wells and partner also refused to sign a privacy waiver which would allow Work and Income to discuss their case. He, however continues to exercise his freedom to say whatever he damn well likes. That is thoroughly inconsistent action from a man who promotes 'honour'.)

Another parable worth recalling

A commentor yesterday didn't think the parable of the professor and his grading system bore "any relation to how socialism works."

So I dug up another one, also well known but worth remembering;

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And here are a couple of real-life illustrations to go with it;

Reminders I have received

The following arrived by e-mail. It's a new one on me (although the wonderful quote at the end is not);

An economics professor at a local college made the statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the third test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased. Bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings. and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

At the end of the experiment, to their great surprise, all failed.

The professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

It could not be any simpler than that.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931

Also well worth a read is Leftists, Progressives and Socialists by Walter Williams. Lest we forget...

What goes unappreciated is that socialists and communists have produced the greatest evil in mankind's history. You say, "Williams, what in the world are you talking about? Socialists, communists and their fellow travelers care about the little guy in his struggle for a fair shake! They're trying to promote social justice." Let's look at some of the history of socialism and communism.

Read more

Foreshore and Seabed showdown looms

National only needs 4 Maori Party MPs to pass the Marine and Coastal Area Bill. Which has left me wondering why it is conceding ACT's amendment. There was a thread at Kiwiblog about this a couple of days back, with contributions from Rodney Hide clarifying ACT's position but I am still unconvinced about motives on either side. That ACT aren't simply being populist and that the Maori Party don't want more than they are letting on.

Now Turia is starting to hint at pulling their support.

Even if my limited capacity to grasp the legal nuances involved leaves me frustrated, watching this political stand-off develop is fascinating.

Presently National needs either ACT or the Maori Party to govern. But only for a few more months.

One of those parties is looking rather precarious. ACT is in danger of losing parliamentary representation next year. The Maori Party will almost certainly bring at least the same number of seats. Who is Key going to placate?

So naturally ACT needs to rouse public opposition to such a degree that Key daren't concede to the Maori Party demands which, all the while, Hone Harawira, now calling Hide "a little fat redneck", is furiously lobbying to ramp up.

But if National just pull the plug on the bill, do they pull the plug on post election support from the Maori Party? Tariana Turia has walked away from a major party before over the very same issue. They won't want to get to the end of this innings with no progress on the very issue the party was formed to resolve.

Perhaps Key could rethink his position on the Urewera demands. Would that be enough to keep the Maori Party on board? That would seriously endanger core National support but might bolster ACT (or NZ First). Or perhaps he could pull the plug on it, make more noise about the shortcomings of MMP, major parties being held to ransom by minor parties, the old ' tale wagging the dog' catchcry thereby priming people to vote in a FPP manner allowing National to go it alone.

Whatever develops, ACT is fighting for its life and the showdown is set to escalate.

On jockeys and second chances

Tragically top Australian jockey, set to ride champion racehorse Shoot Out in the upcoming Cox Plate has been found dead at his Brisbane home. The 31 year-old father of one young son was found by his wife. He has had drug problems in the past but was apparently very fit and mentally well of recent times.

On a happier note I see that Lisa Cropp, ace New Zealand jockey who lost her licence due to P use, resumed riding on Saturday. Not in New Zealand however. She rode in Victoria. I wish her well and will be following her career.

Unlike Trevor Mallard who obviously doesn't believe in second chances.

Quote of the Day

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule — and both commonly succeed, and are right."

— H.L. Mencken

Some (I will link to this morning's DomPost editorial, Labour shift offers voters a clear choice when it is on-line) are celebrating Labour's move to the left because it will strengthen the difference between National and Labour. I am not. As Labour moves economically left, National can stay firmly where it is. And that isn't a good place.

Conservatives, liberals and libertarians

This is a fascinating WSJ article (hat tip Welfare State We're In) about the contrast between social conservatives, liberals and libertarians. The writer explains it in terms of 'karma'. The feeling that what goes around comes around. I think of it more simply as believing in whether or not people are deserving.

The notion of karma comes with lots of new-age baggage, but it is an old and very conservative idea. It is the Sanskrit word for "deed" or "action," and the law of karma says that for every action, there is an equal and morally commensurate reaction. Kindness, honesty and hard work will (eventually) bring good fortune; cruelty, deceit and laziness will (eventually) bring suffering. No divine intervention is required; it's just a law of the universe, like gravity.

Karma is not an exclusively Hindu idea. It combines the universal human desire that moral accounts should be balanced with a belief that, somehow or other, they will be balanced....

Liberals in the 1960s and 1970s seemed intent on protecting people from the punitive side of karma. Premarital sex was separated from its consequences (by birth control, abortion and more permissive norms); bearing children out of wedlock was made affordable (by passing costs on to taxpayers); even violent crime was partially shielded from punishment (by liberal reforms that aimed to protect defendants and limit the powers of the police).

Now jump ahead to today's ongoing financial and economic crisis. Again, those guilty of corruption and irresponsibility have escaped the consequences of their wrongdoing, rescued first by President Bush and then by President Obama. Bailouts and bonuses sent unimaginable sums of the taxpayers' money to the very people who brought calamity upon the rest of us. Where is punishment for the wicked?

...One of the biggest disagreements between the political left and right is their conflicting notions of fairness. Across many surveys and experiments, we find that liberals think about fairness in terms of equality, whereas conservatives think of it in terms of karma. In our survey for YourMorals.org, we asked Americans how much they agreed with a variety of statements about fairness and liberty, including this one: "Ideally, everyone in society would end up with roughly the same amount of money." Liberals were evenly divided on it, but conservatives and libertarians firmly rejected it.

On more karmic notions of fairness, however, conservatives and libertarians begin to split apart. Here's a statement about the positive side of karma: "Employees who work the hardest should be paid the most." Everyone agrees, but conservatives agree more enthusiastically than liberals and libertarians, whose responses were identical.

And here's a statement about the negative side of karma: "Whenever possible, a criminal should be made to suffer in the same way that his victim suffered." Liberals reject this harsh notion, and libertarians mildly reject it. But conservatives are slightly positive about it....

Libertarians are closer to conservatives on two of the five main psychological "foundations" of morality that we study—concerns about care and fairness (as described above). But on the other three psychological foundations—group loyalty, respect for authority and spiritual sanctity—libertarians are indistinguishable from liberals and far apart from conservatives. We call these the three "binding" foundations because they are the psychological systems used by groups—including religious groups, the military and even college fraternities—to bind people together into tight communities of trust, cooperation and shared identity. When you think about morality as a way of binding individuals together, it's no wonder that libertarians (who prize individual liberty above all else) part company with conservatives.

All of this makes imminent good sense to me. I can see myself in there as a conservative in some ways. Let me illustrate that. I recently visited a home with children. I knew it would be a reasonably poor home. I wasn't there on volunteer business. It was a private matter. We have lots of toys the children have now grown out of. A particular toy would make a great gift I thought. But I left it in the boot of my car. If the home was looked after, if the kids were looked after, I would leave the gift. If the property was a mess with broken toys strewn all over the section (not uncommon in my experience) I would not leave the truck. There is my sense of deserving. Happily I was able to leave the children falling all over the gift.

Certainly for me fairness is about deserving, not about divvying up regardless.

On the other hand I am not a believer in punishment. If I was volunteering my job would be to help the family establish some routine and order and posivity which I would take on with gusto and cheerfulness which sometimes diminishes after a few visits. But I believe in everyone having a chance, everyone having potential. So there I am closer to the liberal.

The idea of having to conform to group-think or behaviour however leaves me cold and I move rapidly away from the conservative. Politically I am neither right nor left.

Can you recognise yourself in this article?

Wells: "...we are collectively being ripped off"

Tao Wells, advocate for arsing about, is not at all bright. Having provoked an angry reaction he refuses to recognise the substance of it;

Wells said the anger prompted by his argument was a response to the issues he raised, not an attack on him. "The anger is very real and it's not about me. It's about feeling ripped off – we are collectively being ripped off."

My anger is most definitely directed at you Mr Wells. Then at Creative New Zealand. Then at the socialist condition of New Zealand. I am not part of any 'we' you belong to. You are the rip-off merchant.

He was not advocating for people living off the state but "living for the state". However, he did not have any ideas on how this would be achieved, admitting "we're making this up as we go".

Translated: People should be communists but as communism doesn't work I have to make stuff up.

Look. It is simple. Find some fool who wants to part with their money to keep you fed, watered and intellectually indulged. Taking money from those who do not is theft. It is not art.

Labour promises built on faulty premises

Media Release

LABOUR PROMISES BUILT ON FAULTY PREMISES

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Addressing this weekend's Labour Party Conference, Deputy Leader and Welfare Spokesperson, Annette King, singled out the domestic purposes benefit as a policy that would change under their new 'putting children first' philosophy.

"Unfortunately Ms King doesn't properly understand the dimensions of existing DPB dependence and its effect on children, "said welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell.

"Ms King claimed that, 'Around 70% of people on the DPB move off the benefit in 4 years, it's used as a family transition.'

In striking contrast recent Ministry of Social Development research found that:

On average, sole parents receiving main benefits had more disadvantaged backgrounds than might have been expected:
· just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period observed (the previous 10 years in most cases) supported by main benefits[1]

Ms King went on to criticise National for cutting training support for sole parents yet a Treasury Report to the Welfare Working Group found that the Training Incentive Allowance may have actually resulted in beneficiaries staying on welfare for longer;

Fifty-one percent of DPB recipients participating in an intervention took the Training Incentive Allowance, which MSD found to have no effect on the time a beneficiary was likely to spend off benefit – in fact the study found there was a chance TIA slightly increased the average time spent on benefit. MSD did note there was a chance that TIA may have an unobserved long-term impact (after seven years) on time spent off benefit.[2]

The speech also claims that the DPB does not provide an adequate income. Yet a typical DPB recipient with two children living in Auckland receives $580 per week [3], significantly more than someone working full-time on the minimum wage earns. Hence the incentive to move off a benefit is reduced. International research shows that the higher benefit payments are, the more workless households result."

Mitchell says that starting from so many faulty premises does not bode well for the potential of Labour's promises to improve the prospects of children on welfare.


[1] http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/sole-parenting/understanding-sub-groups-of-sole-parents-receiving-main-benefits.doc

[2] http://ips.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Working%20papers/Treasury_Report_WWG_Sept2010.pdf

[3] http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/newsroom/factsheets/future-focus/domestic-purposes-benefit.html#ImportantstatisticsaboutDPB7

There is nothing " noble" about choosing to live off the efforts of others

Taxpayers and rate-payers, via Creative NZ and the Wellington City Council, have been forced to fund, to the tune of $52,000, a one finger gesture aimed right back at them.

This arsing-about advocate who believes "We should never be forced to take a job,'' needs to add a few more caveats to understand how untenable his position is. How about, We should never be forced to take a job in order to allow someone else not to? Both can't be right.

In any case, who is forced to work? If we didn't have a massive state bureaucracy busy redistributing income willy-nilly, people would be "forcing themselves" to work. Or starve.

I really detest this highly infectious idea that it is somehow noble to not work and not consume. Taken to its logical conclusion we would all perish. Or is Mr whatever- his- name- is saying just some should never be forced to take a job, a new sort of elitism. State supported saints perhaps.

All the media talk this weekend is about the dire state of the economy; the lack of recovery. Yet money continues to be dished out on bullshit 'art'. Art promoting loafing as a lifestyle. Just what we f____ing need.

PM says Coastal Coalition " misleading" people

Wrangling over the Coastal and Marine Bill continues. Audrey Young reports on ACT " boasting" about achieving a clause out of Finlayson that states access to beaches will be "free".

And here (47:50)the Prime Minister tells a caller to NewstalkZB that Hugh Barr of the Coastal Coalition is intentionally or otherwise misleading people about what the legislation will mean.

Key maintains that deals labelled "backroom" are no different to what property developers already pursue through local councils for example. The new legislation simply means that when the government won't cede to Maori claims they can then proceed to court.

I am not sure who to believe.

Australia - "the dumb blonde"

A British branding expert has told Australians that their country is viewed as "the dumb blonde" of the world - shallow, unintelligent but attractive. Which probably explains why so many NZ men go there.

But assuming his theory has some veracity it raises two questions for me.

Do New Zealanders see Australia in the same way as other nationalities? And, if Australia is the dumb blonde, what is New Zealand? I've only been to Australia a couple of times, and bypassed it on the big OE. It seemed too similar to NZ to hold much excitement. Having said that I still travelled to English speaking countries - the US and my original home, the UK, which is a great base for visiting European destinations. But now I am grown up the sameness, paradoxically, holds more attraction. Like many New Zealanders I imagine my lifestyle could be replicated there if I really got sick of NZ, which hasn't happened and is very unlikely to.

Because of our geographical proximity to Australia I don't think we do see it through the same lens as say Americans or Europeans. And I couldn't presume to speak for Asians. Rather than a dumb blonde Australia seems like a scout mistress maybe. Practical, capable, no nonsense, unable to see how others view her. Or rather uncaring about how others view her. (Having already received a couple of nasty shocks searching for an image of a blonde with an Australian flag I am disinclined to look for a picture of a scout mistress.)

New Zealand on the other hand has none of Australia's confidence and self-certainty. New Zealand is still searching for an identity and ergo, a brand. Trying to find one in the dumb blonde vein shouldn't be confused with trying to describe kiwi women. I think the world does have a handle on girls from NZ but how do they see the country? When people would ask me what is NZ like, sometimes, if they were actually interested in an answer and not something else, I would venture that NZ is to Australia what Canada is to the US. Now I think about it, I have no idea what I was talking about beyond accents. Kiwis and Canadians have milder forms of Australian and US accents. Perhaps milder forms of everything.

So maybe NZ is the dumb blonde's mousey friend. The second best but with a bigger heart and a bigger brain.

Benefit growth continues

Acting Social Development Minister Judith Collins, issued a statement about latest benefit numbers putting the usual positive slants on it. Seasonal factors and slowing rate of growth. But cutting to the chase...

There are 338,212 New Zealanders currently receiving a benefit.

That is 1.6 percent higher than in June 2010 when there were 332,924.

Of the 5,288 increase only 1,371 was accounted for by the unemployment benefit. So three quarters of the increase is on other benefits. That is bad news because, as I have pointed out many times before, people stay on the DPB and invalid's benefit much longer and create much higher future liabilities (and social costs).

By December I expect the DPB will exceed the previous high at December 1997 of 114,799. Unless the 'anticipatory' effect of work-testing kicks in (ie faced with a looming obligation to find work some will jump before they are pushed).

One benefit to rule them all

The UK government is forging ahead with its Universal Credit which will apparently replace all benefits. According to the Independent:

Millions of welfare claimants are set to have their benefits scrapped and replaced with a single "universal credit", it was reported today.

The decision represents a victory for Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith in his lengthy battle with the Treasury over his plans to overhaul the welfare system, The Times reported.

Under the changes, housing benefit, income support, incapacity benefit and dozens of other payments will be swept away in a major reform programme intended to break the culture of welfare dependency by making work pay.

The move was announced in a fairly dramatic and sometimes gushy speech given by Iain Duncan Smith on October 1. Some excerpts:

This Conservative-led government has concern for the poor running through its DNA and we are focused each day in order to see joined up government working together for the national interest....

This country needs a completely different type of government. It needs a government of transformation. A Government determined to mend what is broken and reform what doesn't work....

For me, for my department and for this coalition government we recognise that there are five pathways out of poverty.

• Strong, stable families.
• A school that gives you the skills you need for your future.
• Work where you can provide for your family
• Streets that are free of drugs so that our children can grow up in safety
• And freedom from debt.

A government welfare cheque can protect against hardship but can never substitute for a loving parent, an inspirational teacher and a good employer....

But detail on exactly how the Universal Credit will improve on the status quo is not available.

Then, ironically, after announcing the one benefit to rule them all he announces another new benefit:

Today we are going to go further. After discussions with the Prime Minster and the Chancellor I can announce that I will set up the New Enterprise Allowance that will be run by Chris Grayling.

If you have been unemployed for 6 months and want to start your own business we want to support you.

We will provide business mentoring and a financial package worth up to £2000 to get your business up and running.

We want to see 10 000 new small businesses by next year.

Well let's just back up a moment. He also says in his speech;

I'm all for fairness.

I will always fight for fairness for people who have fallen on hard times.

I will always fight for fairness for the very vulnerable.

But fairness must be a two way street.

I'm determined that the people who pay their taxes into this welfare state get a fair deal too.

How are the many self-employed plumbers, roofers, builders, electricians, retailers, cafe owners, cab drivers, couriers etc etc going to feel about the government using their money to fund 10,000 new competitors when times are already very tough?

Sorry, but I just don't think this guy has any hope of making the difference he has sworn to.

What is needed is less welfare; not more welfare, and not welfare under another name.

Feminism vs multiculturalism

Don't you love it when gender politics slams up against ethnic politics? A prominent instance was when Josie Bullock refused to move to a back row on a marae in observance of Maori cultural customs. This left the Corrections Department in a very difficult position unable to uphold both sets of 'rights'. Feminists will normally jump on the multiculturalist band wagons because both groups are collectivists and work to harness state power to advance their agendas. But feminists from the Hand Mirror are at loggerheads with Te Papa over Te Papa's insistence that women who go on a behind-the-scenes tour of Maori exhibits be neither pregnant nor menstruating.

Deborah Russel, prominent feminist blogger on The Hand Mirror blog, does not think the policy should be enforced in modern society.

"I don't understand why a secular institution, funded by public money in a secular state, is imposing religious and cultural values on people.

"It's fair enough for people to engage in their own cultural practices where those practices don't harm others, but the state shouldn't be imposing those practices on other people."

However, Margaret Mutu, head of Maori Studies at Auckland University, said the policy was common in Maori culture.

Women cannot go into the garden, on to the beach or in the kitchen when they are menstruating.

"It's a very serious violation of tapu for women to do those things while menstruating. Women cannot have anything to do with the preparation of food while they are menstruating."

She said the exhibition rule was quite normal. "It's just the way we are ... It's part of our culture, but it's just one that isn't well known and that Pakeha aren't aware of."

Umm. What was that again?

"I don't understand why a secular institution, funded by public money in a secular state, is imposing religious and cultural values on people."

Therein lies the difficulty. "Public money" is, in part, raised from people with "religious and cultural values". Feminists are quite happy to use that money to further their own causes even when those causes clash with the values of the people forced to pay for them.

"The real problem is not enough jobs"

Kay Brereton, Benefit Rights advocate responded to last weeks Treasury report to the Welfare Working Group by saying, The real problem is not enough jobs.

There are 4 points I would make about that statement;

1/ Economies are cyclical. Nobody knows when, but the NZ economy will recover. If we fail to change the current policy settings around the sickness and invalid benefits (what Treasury wants) when we have another strong period of economic growth similar to that of 2003-2008, the numbers on those benefits will continue to rise, as they did during that period.

2/ NZ has a rapidly ageing population which is going to mean increasing demand for aged care workers in rest homes and in the community. Demand already outstrips supply. There is significant caring capacity within the DPB population where over 40,000 people are caring for school age children only.

3/ Many mothers want to work but there is a shortage of pre-school care available. The government pays around half of the DPB population (50,000) to care full-time for one child only. This is a very inefficient use of resources. Every dollar spent on benefits can't be spent elsewhere creating employment.

4/ Tourism is an integral part of the NZ economy. Our PM is Minister for Tourism. Tourism creates many low-skilled jobs but potential workers need to be in the right location to take them. Labour was very successful at moving people off the unemployment benefit into work and one of their strategies was the Jobs Jolt which prevented unemployed beneficiaries from moving to places where there was no work. But that policy was never applied to the sickness, invalids or DPB. Again, all Treasury wants is the same effort put into those people on other benefits who can do some work.

But as long as people continue to take a paralysed defeatist approach that says there are no jobs, there will be no jobs.

US unemployment - how it compares to NZ

A Washington Post report describes how the US economy continues to shed jobs. The good news is that the reduction is in the public sector. The private sector is adding jobs.

The nation's 14.8 million unemployed people have been out of work an average of 33.3 weeks, and nearly 42 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for at least six months.

By way of comparison in NZ 21 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for 6 months or more (not including those who have not specified the duration of spell).

Men continued to bear the brunt of the unemployment problem, with an overall unemployment rate of 9.8 percent, compared with 8 percent rate for women. The unemployment rate for 16.1 percent for blacks, 12.4 percent for Hispanics, 8.7 percent for whites and 6.4 percent for Asians. All of those rates were little changed from August.

Again a comparison to NZ shows that the unemployment rate for men is 6.9 percent compared to 6.8 percent for women. The unemployment rate for Maori is 16.4 percent, Pacific 14.1 percent, Asian 10.5 percent and European 4.4 percent.

Interesting that in the US Asians have the lowest unemployment rate whereas is NZ it is considerably higher than for Europeans. Do Asians do better in a more capitalist society? Are Asians more (or less) integrated into the US compared to NZ and what difference does that make? Perhaps where an ethnicity is less integrated their own economies provide more work opportunities? I have no idea what the answers are. You might.

John Campbell: Should Paul Henry be sacked?

Short on time this morning so a quick post.

John Campbell ran a text poll last night from 6.30 to 7.30 which was responded to by 29,000 (from memory): Should Paul Henry be sacked?

The result was 41 percent said yes and 59 percent, including me, said no.

The site is also polling and the yes/no split is currently at 35/65.

Paul Henry is a very funny man. Sometimes he laughs at things that I don't find funny. Like a lone donkey being hoisted up and flown out to sea under a para-glider. Some say the way he behaves is 'inappropriate' for his role. But what is his role? Breakfast TV seems to be a work in progress to me. It's still a relatively new phenomenon. If Henry wasn't on it I'd find no reason to watch. In the same way as when he left Radio Pacific I stopped listening.

Home of public service wealthiest

I extracted the regional tables from the latest Income Survey released yesterday and made a simple graph which provides an unpretty picture of bureaucracy looking after itself.