Risk of poverty grows for sole parents

Surprise was expressed to me that more children in poverty are now in two-parent families than in sole-parent families, according to the latest Salvation Army report (the information originally comes from the Household Incomes Report). Notwithstanding that  how poverty is measured will effect what percentage sole-parent children make up of the total, using the standard below 60 percent of the median after- housing- costs equivalised household income, in 2009 it was half. The percentage has dropped back because more two-parent families are experiencing a drop in incomes due to the recession.  As 73 percent of sole parents are on a benefit, the likelihood of their income dropping is less than for a two-parent employed family.

But the following chart provides context. It compares the percentage a group makes up of those in poverty and compares it to the percentage the group makes up of the general population. So in 2010 sole parent households made up 24 percent of households in poverty but only 7 percent of all households. Hence their poverty risk ratio is the highest at 3.43

Sallies say government has "no moral authority"

From the latest Salvation Army Report entitled The Growing Divide, this appears on the first page:

‘A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.’ GREEK PROVERB

That must mean something about the older generation acting in the interests of the younger I guess. Don't they? Parents do it all the time. And even governments try I think to improve the lives of future generations. I am not saying they succeed but are nevertheless generally well-intentioned. But by inference, the Sallies don't think so. At least not about National. The report refers to the current government as having no "moral authority", brave (or foolish) for an outfit that gets a good part of its funding from the government. If the government has no moral authority should it be using taxpayer money to fund the Salvation Army? This is what the report says:

Given how close the election result actually was, what sort of mandate can Mr Key now claim? In pure political terms he can now begin to limit welfare entitlements and to sell off public assets, even though fewer than 35% of eligible voters actually supported his party and his plans. The problem that Mr Key and any other Prime Ministers elected with such a limited mandate have is not about power, but about legitimacy. They simply do no have the moral authority to exercise sweeping changes because the majority of people—either by dissent or by absence—have not given this to them.

Sole mum actually receiving equivalent of $43,000 salary

I listened to a couple of parliamentary questions asked today by the Greens and Labour relating to the fuss they are making over a sole mother of two on the DPB turning (almost) to prostitution to pay her study fees (false advertising perhaps?) But that's not all that was false.

Chester Burrows was answering on behalf of Paula Bennett. It was dull and silly. The new Green MP couldn't form her supplementaries in the required form. Fair enough. She is  new. But if she is going to spend her salary flying the protester in question down to Wellington to talk to the media she really needs to have the story straight. According to Burrows, figures in the NZ Herald about the beneficiary's potential subsidies were misrepresented and she is receiving the equivalent of a $43,000 salary from the taxpayer.

The transcript is now available:

 Ms Wysocki was quoted in an article from the New Zealand Herald, and the subsidies available to Ms Wysocki are not those quoted in the New Zealand Herald. The reporter was given an indication of those subsidies orally; he chose not to write them. It is important to note that Ms Wysocki receives the equivalent of a salary of $43,000 a year plus her entitlement to 20 hours’ early childhood education. I think most New Zealanders would find that an equivalent salary of $43,000 is sufficient, or at least reasonable.

Golly, these whingers really need to get a grip. Lots of people would like to study for an alternative career but can't manage it for whatever reason. Don't try holding the taxpayer to ransom because you are on a benefit. Especially when the assistance you already receive is way over that which many receive from a paid job.

What began as a discretionary emergency safety net in 1968 is now expected to furnish all manner of demands.

"Aoteoroa is not for sale"

Staggering the rise in Super eligibility

 The following is the current situation in the United States. It is simple to understand.

Why on earth aren't we doing the same - at the very least?

To draw full retirement benefits, the following Social Security Administration age rules apply:

Born in 1937 or earlier – Full retirement can be drawn at age 65
Born in 1938 – Full retirement can be drawn at age 65 years and 2 months
Born in 1939 -- Full retirement can be drawn at age 65 years and 4 months
Born in 1940 -- Full retirement can be drawn at age 65 years and 6 months
Born in 1941 -- Full retirement can be drawn at age 65 years and 8 months
Born in 1942 -- Full retirement can be drawn at age 65 years and 10 months
Born in 1943-1954 -- Full retirement can be drawn at age 66
Born in 1955 – Full retirement can be drawn at age 66 and 2 months
Born in 1956 -- Full retirement can be drawn at age 66 and 4 months
Born in 1957 -- Full retirement can be drawn at age 66 and 6 months
Born in 1958 -- Full retirement can be drawn at age 66 and 8 months
Born in 1959 -- Full retirement can be drawn at age 66 and 10 months
Born in 1960 or later -- Full retirement can be drawn at age 67

Remember that while you can begin drawing Social Security retirement benefits at age 62, your benefits will be 25 percent less than what they will be if you wait until your full retirement age as shown above..... On the other hand, if you wait to retire beyond your full retirement age, your Social Security benefit will automatically increase by a percentage based on your year of birth. For example, if you were born in 1943 or later, Social Security will add 8 percent per year to your benefit for each year that you delay signing up for Social Security beyond your full retirement age.

Caught on camera

Yesterday youngest one spied an odd-looking cicada shell fixed to our garden wall. Then she realised that it was strange because it was the actual cicada hatching. We watched the process for a couple of hours. Yes, it takes a long time. Fascinating...

...well. Not exactly David Attenborough and I guess you had to be there......

NZ Herald continues to talk up child poverty

Reinforcing their recent series about income inequality, a NZ Herald editorial contains this statement:

The proportion of children in poverty - defined as households with less than 60 per cent of the median income to live on after paying housing costs - has risen from 16 per cent in 1990 to 26 per cent today.

The following table appears in the most recent Ministry of Social Development Household Incomes Survey:

Dear Editor

The NZ Herald has recently devoted a great deal of energy and space to the issue of child poverty and inequality. One editorial contained the statement, "The proportion of children in poverty - defined as households with less than 60 per cent of the median income to live on after paying housing costs - has risen from 16 per cent in 1990 to 26 per cent today." 

The official source for poverty measurement, the Ministry of Social Development's Household Incomes Report, shows that using the 'fixed-line after housing costs 60% threshold', the proportion of children in poverty fell from 37 percent in 2001 to 22 percent in 2010. Using the other measure, 'moving-line', the percentage fell from 30 to 25 (with a dip to 22 percent in 2007).

Also ignored regarding income inequality is, "Income inequality peaked in the early 2000s, then fell from 2004 to 2007 as a result of the WFF package, and in 2010 was lower again than in 2007. The lower figures in 2010 compared with 2007 reflect two changes: (a) the recent (2009 to 2010) decline in real incomes for the top two deciles (lower investment returns especially), and (b) a small real gain for lower deciles." 

Personally I would favour lower tax rates over the Working For Families programme which produces inefficiencies and disincentives. But the fact remains income inequality has been reducing nationally. It would seem your series is asking readers to believe that Auckland is following a different trend.

Real incomes decline in the top two deciles and rise in the lower

Simon Collins, social issues reporter for the NZ Herald, has written a series about Auckland's inequality which was published over the course of last week. Today he recaps and produces the answers (which are very grim):

To briefly recap where this series started: Auckland has changed in a generation from an equal city in 1986, when median incomes of most suburbs were bunched tightly around the regional average, to an unequal city by 2006, where median incomes of the city's 300-odd suburban census units spread widely across the income scale.

Similar increases in inequality have occurred across many developed countries.
The driving forces have been both technological changes, which have strengthened the power of the skilled at the expense of the unskilled; and policy changes, which have weakened unions, opened markets to free trade, cut taxes on the rich and imposed new taxes on spending that bear most heavily on the poor.

To my mind he has omitted the most important factor. The change in family structure. Single parent families  are amongst the poorest. The percentage of families with dependent children that are single grew nationally from 18 to 28 percent between 1986 and 2006. I don't have specific Auckland figures but am willing to bet the percentage there is higher based on DPB numbers. Reconstituted families are also poorer given ongoing obligations to past partners and children.

Collins might argue that this change has been an effect of all of the above in that unemployment can cause family breakdown and there aren't enough unskilled jobs to go around. I would argue that people respond to inevitable change. Human beings  are highly adaptable. Some will react positively to change by making an effort.  But some will take the easy option and adapt accordingly. And the benefit system made it all too possible to take easy options.

So naturally, over time, the gulf between these two groups will widen.

In respect of answers to the inequality, Collins continues:

At the caring end of the spectrum, the Child Poverty Action Group has been lobbying for more help for low-income families since it was formed in 1994.

 Its biggest campaign has been to pay the $60-a-week "in-work tax credit" to parents who lose their jobs or can't work, as well as those in paid work. Since 59 per cent of children in poverty live in homes with no full-time worker, this change alone would slash child poverty.

So there is the acknowledgement that a majority of the children in poverty are in single parent homes (only a small portion are in two-parent homes dependent on the unemployment or other benefit). But how can he be so certain the move would slash child poverty if another predictable effect was to draw more children onto benefits?

Further answers feature more redistribution of wealth for housing, public transport, pre-schools, youth jobs, etc via the ratepayer. The great Super City solution.

Not content with that Collins writes:

Beyond these local moves, a more fundamental shift in the policy balance might mean picking up ideas from the Council of Trade Unions' alternative economic strategy, such as raising the minimum wage to two-thirds of the average wage, strengthening rights to negotiate wages collectively, raising the top income tax rate to 45 per cent and allowing a tax-free income band at the bottom.

So more Robin Hood strategies despite the current situation which is:

-    For half of households with dependent children the amount received through welfare benefits and tax credits is greater than or equal to the amount they pay in income tax.

-    Single-earner two-child families with less than $55,000 from wages pay no net income tax.  They receive more from WFF tax credits than they pay in income tax and ACC.

When all households are counted (working age with children, working age without children, and 65+ households), and looking at households grouped in deciles rather than looking at individual households, the total income tax paid by each of the bottom five deciles is less than the total transfers received (tax credits, welfare benefits, NZS and so on).  It is only for each of the top five deciles that total income tax paid is greater than transfers received.

Finally, I have a problem with Collins using the Census 2006 data. I accept that it was the most recently available for Auckland. However he could have at least acknowledged more recent national data on household incomes. Especially as the trend since 2006 is towards reduced inequality.The Household Incomes in New Zealand: Trends in Indicators of Inequality and Hardship 1982 to 2010 was published late last year. Here are some excerpts:

Income inequality peaked in the early 2000s, then fell from 2004 to 2007 as a result of the WFF package, and in 2010 was lower again than in 2007

·         Inequality remained much the same from 2007 to 2009 – the 80:20 ratio declined a little and the Gini rose.  From 2009 to 2010, inequality declined on both measures.

·    The lower figures in 2010 compared with 2007 reflect two changes: (a) the recent (2009 to 2010) decline in real incomes for the top two deciles (lower investment returns especially), and (b) a small real gain for lower deciles.

On the latest OECD figures (c2008), New Zealand’s Gini score of 33 was close to those of Australia and the UK (34), Japan (33) and Canada (32), and a little above the OECD-34 median (31).  Countries such as Denmark, Norway and Sweden have lower than average inequality (Ginis of 25-26).  The US score is 38.  New Zealand’s Gini score in 2010 was 32.

Yes Auckland has an ethnic mix which features some of the countries lowest incomes due to large or lone parent families, unskilled migrants and expensive housing. But I look forward to Collins repeating the exercise when this year's Census figures become available.
Perhaps he won't.

Novel support for Piri Weepu

Readers of the NZ Herald are sending their own photos of bottle-feeding babies in a show of support for Piri Weepu. Here's my submission. The big sister revels in her role.

Ignoring willpower

Very succinct. From the NCPA:

The Nanny State

Public health officials have increasingly claimed a large responsibility to legislate health to society at large, propping up the mandates of the Nanny State at the expense of personal freedom.  Relying upon a number of pseudoscientific arguments, these vocal advocates argue that the state must enforce certain behavior among its citizens for one of two reasons: first, the state must protect people from themselves, or second, the state must protect people from others who would encroach on their autonomy, says Michael Keane of the Institute of Public Affairs, a public policy think tank in Australia.
In campaigning that we must protect people from themselves, public health officials ascribe to the "disease model," whereby a person's actions are divorced from his or her own decision making.

• In the case of a person who gambles recklessly, their actions are excused as a biological necessity -- that this person is predisposed to the addictive behavior and should therefore be protected from it by legislation.
• This level of intrusion, however, far exceeds commonly accepted standard for medical ethics as it arguably defies much of what we might call being human.
• Furthermore, it fails to incorporate willpower as a relevant force in its model, thereby removing culpability and the importance of self-control from consideration.

Another tactic that is equally pervasive among public health advocates is to focus on the damaging effects of one's actions to third parties.  This can be seen in one-to-one arguments, such as the effect that one's choice to smoke has on the inhaler of second-hand smoke, and one-to-many arguments, such as the effect that one's choice to smoke has on society's health care costs.
The fundamental difficulty with both of these systems and the policies that they advocate is that they limit personal choice -- an idea that in numerous other spheres created great prosperity throughout the Western world.  When one recognizes that most people are rational actors and capable of weighing the costs and benefits of an action if aware of them, the need for the Nanny State is diminished.

Source: Michael Keane, "Ideology, Not Science," Institute of Public Affairs, January 2012.
For text:
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1978/ideology,-not-science

De Bres stop kidding yourself

From the front page of today's Dominion Post:

The race relations commissioner has criticised some Pakehas' "lack of generosity" towards deprived Maori as Waitangi Day celebrations have again turned violent..... Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres criticised those Pakeha who still resisted moves to give "special treatment" to disadvantaged Maori, thousands of whom suffered inequality.

"I still have a sense that there is a lack of generosity in some Pakeha attitudes to Maori and there is a lack of will to see measures taken that will help to remove that disadvantage and there is a lack of understanding of this notion that it is actually fair to deal specifically with people who are suffering unfairness."

The very person charged with improving race relations stirs up ill-feeling with these sorts of comments.

What does "special treatment" to "disadvantaged Maori"  consist of? Is he talking about affirmative action? Within the welfare-state model New Zealand operates under (which I don't support) I don't particularly care if Maori get funding to do their own thing, for example Whanau Ora. Or run their own schools. Or their own health clinics. Or their own youth courts. I think the jury is still out on how (relatively) successful these initiatives will prove to be.

But if 'measures to remove disadvantage' includes the vast transfer of cash to fund the DPB for example, which is now a firmly entrenched part of Maori culture, then yes, I do feel a distinct "lack of generosity".

And I think I have amply explained why over and over. It is Pakeha generosity that has allowed the deprivation of Maori to accelerate through welfare benefits. It is the benefit system that has absolved Maori (and other deprived people) from becoming better educated, skilled and responsible.

So when we read a headline that says,

Pakeha urged to be more generous

it is hardly surprising if some of us bristle.

Charles Murray closes his book about the failure of the US war on poverty, the war on the particular disadvantage of African Americans, with this salient observation:

"When reforms finally do occur, they will happen not because stingy people have won, but because generous people have stopped kidding themselves."

You just can't win (updated)

You just can't frigging win in this country. Give up Piri. You'll never beat or even meet the fanatical expectations of mammary maniacs. Never mind that you are actively fathering,  hands-on, taking responsibility, and caring for your kids.

You haven't got breasts so forget it.

Seriously, breast is not necessarily best. There are all sorts of situations when bottle-feeding - or a combination of bottle and breast - is necessary or even desirable.

The value in having a Maori All-Black showing how to be a father far, far outweighs any value in constantly shoving compulsory breast-feeding down every-bodies throats.

On second thoughts Piri, don't give up, just tell them where to go.

Update:

Well, well, well. An astonishing reaction to this story in the NZ Herald.

I have read through some of the 334 comments. As yet I haven't found one in support of the decision to pull the footage of Piri Weepu bottle-feeding his baby. The reactions range from puzzlement to very real anger. Some phrases used to describe La Leche etc  like "Breastapo" and the "breast-feeding mafia" give you a taste of the flavour of most comments.

Here's one of the more poignant ones:

The Owl

And they wonder why men are so marginalised from children nowadays, can't teach 'im, never touch 'im, in the same breath they will be saying men aren't doing enough to be a positive influence on children. Really is it any wonder why we have one the highest depression rates in the world.

Who pulled the images they should be fired, lets get some mens rights back.

Sunday graph - growth we don't need

From the Briefing to Incoming Minister of Social Development.

DPB and the exploitation of women

I can't understand why feminists so fiercely defend the DPB.

It is a two-sided coin yet feminists only ever see heads when it's flipped.

While it furnishes some freedom from men who would hurt women, it has increasingly made them more vulnerable to those very same individuals.

Men attach themselves to women who have a certain level of cash security, four walls and a roof over their heads. The logic of that is clear.

But a NZ Herald piece I missed last weekend exposes another way in which men exploit the DPB and the women who rely upon it.

Children's advocate Dame Lesley Max wants more promotion of contraception as a step towards tackling child abuse.

She told a public meeting in Mt Roskill yesterday about a man who came to a parenting class in Papakura saying his goal in life was to have 11 children - even though all his children so far had been taken off him by Child, Youth and Family.

"He doesn't care for them. He can't care for them. He enters relationships with one vulnerable woman after another, and our system enables him to do so."

At last count the man had exceeded his target, fathering at least 12 children with at least three women. Dame Lesley said he was not working. She thought all his ex-partners were on the domestic purposes benefit.

Of course he is not working. Paying child support for 12 children (IF he is the named father) means working makes him no better off. Financially he is better off on a benefit paying the bare minimum. That leaves him broke and he's back to looking for someone else to sponge off.

But who would welcome him? Someone else looking for free money. And his babies guarantee it.

 "My experience, after 20 years of being responsible for a community agency with families facing multiple challenges, is that the planning of families is something that is hardly considered, hardly talked about, and children just happen without intent."

Maybe. Maybe not. While not denying it is a factor, contraception is the wrong primary focus. The attention needs to go on the incentive. The money.

These kids won't be best served by paid workers

The following is copied from the Centre for Independent Studies (Australia) weekly newsletter. No explanation needed.

Hardly fair to vulnerable children

 

For the last three years, I have been arguing that Australia’s failing child protection system is being run in the interests of social service providers and not ‘at risk’ children.

In the name of ‘family preservation,’ state community service departments are leaving children for far too long with highly dysfunctional families and only remove them as a last resort when they have been damaged, often permanently, by parental neglect and abuse.

While the childhoods and life opportunities of children ebb away into intergenerational disadvantage, social workers employed in the public sector and non-government ‘charitable’ organisations receive taxpayer funding to provide an array of support services that try and fail to do the impossible – fix broken families with serious drug and alcohol, domestic violence, and mental health problems that can’t be fixed.

The Fair Work Australia decision on Wednesday to award ‘equal pay’ to more than 150,000 community sector workers at a cost of $2 billion to taxpayers is indecent in its illustration of the political problems in the child protection system.

Forget that the decision is based on dodgy comparisons – why should someone with a three-year social work degree have income parity with a trained economist or scientist? Sadly, the federal government was not only willing to support the claim but also provided the $2 billion additional funding to foot the higher wage bill at a time of looming economic woes.

Many commentators are justifying the pay rise by saying those who choose to work with the poor are saints. The real question is why is failure being rewarded? Public choice, dear reader. I just wish vulnerable children had a public sector union to advocate on their behalf, replete with tame factional serfs in the Labor caucus.

That feathering their own nests has been the priority at a time when the child protection system is crumbling all around us and stumbling from one crisis to another means that social workers have surrendered any pretensions to their ‘professional’ status.

This sorry episode has reinforced my belief that the answer to the perpetual crisis engulfing child protection is to restore citizen-control over the system by re-establishing decentralised, community-governed child protection agencies.

Dr Jeremy Sammut is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies and author of Do Not Damage and Disturb: On Child Protection Failures and the Crisis in Out of Home Care in Australia.  

Maori economic situation worsens

The Briefing to the Incoming Minister of Maori Affairs  contains this statement:

Recent research shows that Māori households spend approximately $5 billion more than they earn annually, and transfer payments to Māori now exceed the tax contribution that Māori make to the economy.

I am unsure whether this indicates overspending regardless of source of income, or that by using the word "earn" paid employment is indicated and  the difference is down to benefits.

Back in 2003 a paper (pg12, table 3) by the Institute of Economic Research showed that Maori were paying slightly more in tax than they received in transfers. Specifically they paid $2.404 in tax and received $2.312 in social benefits. So the situation has worsened. Unfortunately the new "recent" research isn't referenced.

What our children face

My children were born in 1994 and 1998. They will turn 65 in 2059 and 2063.

Just looking at some tables  (XLS, Figure 14) in the Treasury Briefing to Incoming Finance Minister.

At the moment there are five 15-64 year-olds for each 65+ individual.

By 2061 the ratio falls to only 2.3 15-64 year-olds for each over 65 year-old.

Charter schools - why the fuss?

I am still perplexed about the fuss over charter schools. According to Stuff:

The charter school system would allow private business, religious organisations, iwi, or charities to take over the management of failing schools and retain state funding.

There are already many examples of existing schools that are run by private organisations and government subsidised. Not least are the Exclusive Brethren schools which teach the state curriculum and employ non-Brethren teachers. Their rolls are growing. There are Catholic schools, Kura Kaupapa Maori, and others, all seemingly schools that parents line up to send their children to.

There are also some good state schools, especially those that have a certain character and ethos that staff are committed to.

But there are state schools that are unsuccessful. Personally I believe the home environment dictates a child's willingness to learn and participate and many schools are just up against it. But if an organisation - or just a dedicated inspirational individual -  is willing to try and improve the prospects of those children, why oppose them?

Jacinda Ardern - nutter

Jacinda Ardern is desperate to get some traction as the new Labour Social Development spokesperson and issues say-nothing press releases in the process. But yesterday's is even worse than saying nothing:

Jacinda
ARDERN
Spokesperson for Social Development

31 January 2012 MEDIA STATEMENT
Statistics can’t hide the truth
With almost twice as many people on the unemployment benefit now as when National first became the government, it is glaringly obvious it has to take a serious look at its policies, Labour’s Social Development spokesperson Jacinda Ardern says.
“Statistics, which should have been released before now, show that as of the end of last month there were 29,456 more Kiwis receiving the unemployment benefit than in December 2008.That’s a 96.5 per cent increase in just three years.

The December quarter benefit factsheets were released "before now" (31 January). They were released last Wednesday, January 25. Which is fairly typical for quarterly statistics, towards the end of the month following end of the quarter. If Ardern had been monitoring the MSD website, her job, she would have noticed them sooner.

On the matter of unemployment the numbers are down. Here is what the fact sheet actually says:

At the end of December 2011, 60,000 working-age people (aged 18–64 years)[1] were receiving an Unemployment Benefit[2].   Over the year to December 2011, the number of recipients of an Unemployment Benefit decreased by 7,000, or 11 percent[3].

Ardern continues:

“The Government has been banging on about a brighter future and more jobs for a while now. The rhetoric is fine, but words without actions are meaningless,” Jacinda Ardern said.
“The figures tell their own story. It’s obvious now why the Minister sat on them for two months to avoid pre-election coverage; they show the Government is failing to stem the tide of jobless.

What? How can the Minister sit on December quarter statistics during November??

And to blatantly ignore the positive unemployment trend and then issue a statement entitled Statistics can’t hide the truth is comedic. Nutter.

Utterly absurd requirement

Just listening to the lunchtime news and I was alerted to the law change that will require trainee drivers to undergo 120 hours of supervised driving before they can sit their restricted licence.

This is UTTERLY ABSURD.

Do you know how many hours one has to fly to sit a private pilot's licence?

50

And some of those will be solo.

But driving a (probably) automatic car, with a couple of instruments to monitor, in one dimension, with the extra security that if the engine stops you glide to a halt rather than fall out of the sky (sorry, within the 50 hours pilots are taught how to perform an emergency landing in the event of engine failure), not having to communicate orally with other drivers or a control tower simultaneously, monitor weather or track,  can only be taught to licence  standard in 120 hours???