Living wage critique

I posted earlier some opportunity cost examples Brian Scott provided in his critique of the living wage calculations. Kiwiblog has now linked to his full published report.

Brian Scott has published a critique of the so called Living Wage, and it should be compulsory reading for any politician that has treated the calculations done by Rev Waldegrave as a fit basis for public policy decisions. It is quite legitimate to have a view that wages should be higher, but to insist that the correct level is that calculated by Rev Waldegrave is a surrender to symbolism over substance.
The key findings by Scott are:

1. Only 12% of low income households are two adults and two dependents, which the Waldegrave calculation is based on
2. They assume you need 10 hours of childcare a week, even if the children are aged over 14
3. They calculation of level of “basic necessities” is not based on any empirical measurement of the lowest cost of necessities, but merely a proportion of the average expenditure in deciles 1 to 5 (this one is key – it is a calculation based on the Browns should be spending as much as the Jones, and is not a caculation on how much income the Browns need)
4. The calculation doesn’t account for some sources of household income such as trade-ins, sales, teenagers income (yet does include their costs) and school donation tax refunds
5. The calculation double counts some expenditure such as childcare costs
6. The calculation includes as a basic necessity costs such as Sky TV, pets, international travel and video games
7. The calculation includes insurance for dwellings and mortgages, despite assuming they are renting

Implication of ageing population

The graph below depicts the 'support ratio' for NZ over the next 46 years. The support ratio is the ratio of workers to consumers. The best way to reduce the drop is through greater immigration (the blue line) although at some point immigrants also become consumers and not workers. Increasing fertility takes women out of the workforce so produces more consumers in the short term (the green line). Whichever way you look at it by 2060 the ratio will be probably lower than ever before. And in 1960, when families produced three,  four or five children, the consumers were generally less expensive than those of the future - more predominantly the elderly. Though I guess that's a debatable point.

Who pays the lion's share of income tax?

A reader sent me the following:

Could these comments apply to NZ and Australia ? The top 1 percent of U.S. earners pay nearly 40 percent of U.S. income taxes. The top 10 percent pay 70 percent. The top 50 percent pay more than 97 percent of income taxes. The poor pay nothing. 

Absolutely the comments can apply to NZ. The numbers change only slightly. From Treasury:

Who pays income tax... and how much?

Annual individual taxable income ($)	Number of people (000)	Number of people %	Tax paid ($m)	Tax paid %
Zero	260	8	0	0
1 - 10,000	374	11	171	1
10,001 - 20,000	704	21	1,234	5
20,001 - 30,000	469	14	1,539	6
30,001 - 40,000	341	10	1,756	7
40,001 - 50,000	293	9	2,001	8
50,001 - 60,000	234	7	2,232	8
60,001 - 70,000	188	6	2,340	9
70,001 - 80,000	138	4	2,138	8
80,001 - 90,000	95	3	1,791	7
90,001 - 100,000	65	2	1,427	5
100,001 - 125,000	99	3	2,689	10
125,001 - 150,000	42	1	1,488	6
150,001+	75	2	5,590	21
All	3,375	100	26,397	100

The trouble is these figures don't include tax credits, benefits, and other cash tansfers. When they are taken into account:

... Treasury earlier this year [2013] estimated that this year households earning over $150,000 a year – the top 12 per cent of households by income – will pay 46 per cent of income tax.

But when benefit payments, Working for Families, paid parental leave and accommodation support are taken into account, these 12 per cent of households are expected to pay 76 per cent of the net income tax. And that is before New Zealand Superannuation payments are counted.

By contrast, households earning under $60,000 a year – which is half of all households – are expected to pay 11 per cent of income tax.

“When we take income support payments into account, as a group they will actually pay no net income tax at all,” Mr English says.

“That’s because the $2.7 billion of income tax they are expected to pay will be more than offset by the $8.1 billion they will receive in income support.

 So, "12 per cent of households are expected to pay 76 per cent of the net income tax" is pretty much the same as the US figure of, "The top 10 percent pay 70 percent". Notwithstanding I don't know whether the US figure applies to households or individuals.

Drug testing beneficiaries unconstitutional Florida judge rules

From Reason.com:

A district court judge in Florida granted summary judgment for the plaintiff in a case challenging the constitutionality of a law requiring welfare recipients to submit to drug testing.

More

Fair enough. Making beneficiaries pass a drug test as a condition of receiving welfare is a bridge too far in my opinion. The drug-testing Work and Income conduct is on people who will be referred to jobs that require applicants to be drug-free. That's a different matter.

Paula Bennett:

“Around 40 percent of the jobs listed with Work and Income require drug tests and it’s reasonable for employers to expect people to be drug free.”

As I've commented before the whole drug-testing issue is thorny for me, beneficiary or not. If private companies want drug-free employees that's their prerogative. However it's unrealistic to broaden the expectation to ever-increasing types of employment. And a breach of people's privacy rights...which I think is what this judge is ruling.

Pacific people more self-sufficient than Maori

At 15.7 percent, Pacific people have higher unemployment than Maori at 12.2 percent.
 
Yet their reliance on benefits is low compared to Maori.

At September 2013, there were 9,546 Pacific people on a Jobseeker Benefit compared to 42,277 Maori. As a percentage of all people on JS that equates to 7.5 and 33 percent. The Pacific share is roughly equal to their overall percentage of the population. The Maori share is more than double their overall percentage of the population.

Looking at sole parents the pattern is repeated with 10 percent of those receiving Sole Parent Support being Pacific and 46 percent, Maori.

The final benefit, Supported Living Payment, shows a similar ratio though the numbers are lower at 6 and 24 percent.

So why the difference?

Is it simply that Pacific families and communities are stronger and more supportive? Is it a matter of eligibility for benefits? Is there a shame attached to being on a benefit?

My knowledge of Pacific people and their culture isn't sufficient to provide the answer but I favour the first reason.

Given their self-reliance though I wonder why they vote Labour? Perhaps they don't, or won't in the future.

Here's a quote from 2011:

Mr Laulu [senior Labour Party office holder] said he did not believe Labour could continue to rely on Pacific people to vote Labour "because I'm union or my parents and family have always voted Labour".

Graph of the Year

The current and beloved article of faith amongst leftists is rising inequality.

Here's a very recent example from Boxing Day:  

Inequality keeps rising, says UC social research expert

Earlier in the year I was fortunate enough to be sent a hard copy of the latest Household Incomes report by its author. Lucky because a request to MSD went unacknowledged and it's such a lengthy, comprehensive report a printed reference copy does wonders for data ease of accessibility and my good humour. Thank you Bryan Perry.

Here's the graph that should accompany every press release about growing inequality.

This is the official measure of inequality in New Zealand. The trend line can best be described as declining albeit slowly.

Taking envyism to a new level

Here's an interesting claim from a poster at the Daily Blog:

Right now the minimum wage is so low that those receiving it look upon beneficiaries with envy. - See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/30/next-year-is-election-year/#sthash.AMxcxww8.dpuf

Right now the minimum wage is so low that those receiving it look upon beneficiaries with envy. - See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/30/next-year-is-election-year/#sthash.AMxcxww8.dpuf

 "Right now the minimum wage is so low that those receiving it look upon beneficiaries with envy."

If that's true, it's a major problem for the Left who look for voters from both low-income groups - workers and beneficiaries.

With envy comes resentment. You might expect low income workers to feel some sympathy for beneficiaries if both groups are 'struggling'. But if the Left continue to stir and fuel bitterness about low wages, those workers might consequently feel more resentful towards beneficiaries than government.

Then, when Labour and the Greens talk about lifting benefit levels specifically through paying beneficiaries the IN WORK tax credit, how are they going to react?

Is that what's really behind the living wage campaign? To lift minimum wage levels up to the equivalent that (some) beneficiaries receive?

The political poser for the Left is how to keep low wage workers and beneficiaries both happy with election promises. What an awful dilemma.

Right now the minimum wage is so low that those receiving it look upon beneficiaries with envy. - See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/30/next-year-is-election-year/#sthash.AMxcxww8.dpuf

Ten positive trends

Time for a break from the hand wringing promulgated by left-wing academics, politicians and media, and note some of the positive trends that are happening in New Zealand:

1/ Assaults on police

Tasers and training are credited with a double-digit drop in assaults against police.
Recorded offences against police dropped more than 20% between 2009-10 and 2012-13, figures released under the Official Information Act figures reveal.

2/ Deaths from sudden infant death syndrome

The number of infants dying suddenly has dropped but the rate is still too high, officials say.

In 2012, 36 infants died of cot death or sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI). This is down from 55 deaths in 2008.

3/ Recorded crime

Police Minister Anne Tolley has praised frontline Police, with recorded offences down for the third fiscal year in a row, and a massive 17.4 per cent drop in crimes in the past three years.
There were 29,337 fewer recorded offences in the year to June 2013, a fall of 7.4 per cent, representing a 7.9 per cent drop per head of population.

4/ Smoking rate

The recently-issued 2013 census results show a big fall in smoking rates since the last count in 2006. Little by little, great progress has been made...The news stories focused mainly on the overall decline in the numbers of smokers, which had fallen by nearly a quarter, from 598,000 to 463,000. That means that today only about 15 per cent of adults smoke, compared with nearly 21 per cent in 2006.

5/ Teenage birth rate

... the birth rate per 15-19 year-olds has been dropping since 2008.

6/ Abortion rate

The general abortion rate decreased from 17.3 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years in 2011 to 16.1 in 2012. It cemented a five-year downward trend, and the rate was the lowest since 1995, when it was also 16.1 per 1,000, Statistics New Zealand said.

7/ Road deaths

 A record-low Labour Weekend road toll is part of a "downward trend" in deaths on New Zealand roads, police say.

8/ Child mortality rate

New Zealand's infant mortality rate - babies who die before their first birthdays - has fallen steadily from 25 for every 1000 births in the early 1950s to 4.8 for every 1000 in the Unicef data, and to 4.2 in the latest Statistics NZ figures for 2012.

9/ Maori suicide rate

The drop in Maori suicide was largely accounted for by a decrease in male Maori suicide, in particular young male Maori suicide. In 2011/12 there were 94 male Maori suicides, while in 2012/13 there were 72.

10/ Rheumatic fever amongst children

The Rheumatic Fever Prevention Programme began on 1 July 2011, and has been significantly expanded since. The goal of the programme is to reduce rates of new cases of rheumatic fever by two thirds, from a baseline rate of 4.2 cases in 2011 to 1.4 cases per 100,000 people by June 2017. In 2012, the rate of rheumatic fever had reduced to 3.8 cases per 100,000 people

Poverty and relativity

Part of the 'poverty' proganda focuses on house size. In particular, how many children have to share a bedroom.

While New Zealand's narrative is similar to the United Kingdom's, the following piece from The Scotsman provides a more optimistic slant:

Modern Scots are living in relative luxury compared with conditions 150 years ago.
Two people were sharing every room in a home, the 1861 census shows, compared with a current average of two rooms for every person.

The term 'relative' should be employed in both a contemporary and historic sense.

In the developed world, we are all undoubtedly richer today then ever before.

I've been intending to link to this new site and now presents the perfect opportunity.

HUMAN PROGRESS

Forecast welfare spending

Governments come and go with ambitious reform ideas and plans.  Treasury just keeps on forecasting numbers and expenditures seemingly regardless of those policy changes. The depressing thing is, if you were going to put money on who has the most reliable crystal ball, it'd have to go on Treasury. That's what history shows anyway.

Table 6.2 - Welfare benefit expenses (continued)

Beneficiary numbers (Thousands)	2009 Actual	2010 Actual	2011 Actual	2012 Actual	2013 Actual	2014 Forecast	2015 Forecast	2016 Forecast	2017 Forecast	2018 Forecast
New Zealand Superannuation	522	540	561	585	612	640	667	692	716	739
Jobseeker Support and Emergency Benefit1	..	..	..	..	..	138	132	127	125	125
Supported living payment1	..	..	..	..	..	96	96	95	94	94
Sole parent support1	..	..	..	..	..	79	77	77	77	77
Domestic Purposes Benefit1	101	110	114	114	109	..	..	..	..	..
Invalid's Benefit1	86	88	88	87	87	..	..	..	..	..
Sickness Benefit1	50	58	60	60	60	..	..	..	..	..
Unemployment Benefit1	48	78	80	73	67	..	..	..	..	..
Accommodation Supplement	267	312	320	311	305	297	296	294	296	299

Do NZ women really get such a raw deal?

Here's a passage written earlier this year by a female academic:

New Zealand women are losing their human rights - the right to:

 •Life, liberty and security of person.

 •Not be discriminated against for any reason including gender.

 •Be equal before the law and, without any discrimination, to equal protection of the law

 •Free choice of employment, just and favourable conditions of work and protection against unemployment.

•Equal pay for equal work.

 •A standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of herself and her family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.

 •Security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond her control.

I wonder if they would also like equal social spending?

Per capita social expenditures by age (males)

This Treasury working  paper only featured the graph for males but the tables that contain the data the graph(s) are made from are available from another paper.

I expected that for females the social expenditures per capita would be higher, but was surprised by how much.

Looking at three age groups here are the total social expenditures per capita:

20-24 male $6,654 female $8,674 (+30%)
40-44 male $9,044 female $11,559 (+28%)
60-64 male $9,526 female $11,743 (+23%)
80-84 male $24,459 female $25,787 (+5%)

Over their working age lifetimes females consistently cost the state considerably more. Even at 80-84 females cost more in Super and Disability Support Services.

Yet women's  participation in the workforce is also lower throughout their lifetimes.


 

Absent fathers

The weather in Wellington has packed up so time for a bit of reading.

After Colin James drew my attention to it, I thought I'd have a closer look at what the Parliamentary Health Committee published. The title of the report is long-winded: "Inquiry into improving child health outcomes and preventing child abuse with a focus on pre-conception until three years of age", November 2013, Report of the Health Committee. It's 126 pages.

When I got to about page 70 it suddenly occurred to me that fathers were absent. So I did a search.

"Fathers" are effectively mentioned once. There is a two paragraph section titled, "Fathers and the maternity system" and an ensuing recommendation. Apart from the acknowledgement of a submission from Great Fathers Trust (that was a waste of time), that's it.

So I tried "male". Again one mention. This time relating to sterilisation.

As a society we nag on about deadbeat Dads and absentee fathers.

This report only demonstrates that fathers aren't particularly valued anyway. Any protective and positive role they play is virtually ignored.
 
Update

I'd rather end on a happy note. My Dad was probably the most influential person in my childhood and youth. Even today, when I need solace or advice or help he is often the first person I turn to. So my thoughts about fathers are coloured by my own experience. I wish it was one more commonly shared. Merry Christmas, especially to those Dads who are unwillingly separated from their children and finding this time of year hard.

Colin James' christmas message

I didn't want to blog today. But this couldn't go without comment. It's an extract from Colin James' Christmas message:

In our small, enlightened society many tens of thousands of children go without some necessities or nourishing food or emotional security or guidance to learn.

Through the actions of mothers who eat badly and/or smoke, drink and take drugs before conception and during pregnancy and/or live with a violent man and/or then don't or can't get their children reading and counting and ready to be schooled, many of those children are in effect imprisoned, not in a hulk but in the lesser persons they become compared with what they might have been. Many are imprisoned in drugs, mental illness, delinquency and crime.

Well, that's just bad parents, isn't it? None of our business. Our job is to bring up our kids right, not interfere in others' private affairs, isn't it? Isn't that individual liberty? 

Individual liberty requires individual responsibility. When individuals cease to act responsibly, when they neglect or abuse their child, they are no longer living in a state of individual liberty.

They lost - or never achieved - that status because the collective has absolved them from taking it. That is the genesis of the conditions James' describes. Will more intervention and investment by the collective return these parents to a state of individual liberty? That seems to be the advice.

The parliamentary health committee disagrees. A report in November, chaired by National MP Paul Hutchison and signed by all 10 MPs on the committee -- five National, three Labour, one Green and one New Zealand First -- focused on the needs and opportunities of the child and proposed many interventions to get parents ready and fit and get children a good start.

That report, the most important parliamentary report in a long time, essentially said the country should frame policy and then make social investments on the presumption that a child of one of us is a child of all of us and that no child deserves a bad start.

That is a simple economic calculation: a child who can get educated and is emotionally stable will join the workforce, pay taxes, take a full part in society and bring up children who do the same in turn.

It is also a calculation of social cohesion: the more numerous the children who grow up feeling they are fully part of society, the stronger, and probably richer, that society will be.

But as the Health Committee report notes NZ's spending on children is already high compared to other OECD countries.

So the message sounds noble but it doesn't take me past the essential problem. You can't make people more responsible by taking responsibility off them. And in a large part, that's what the welfare state does.

You could spin it either way

Social Development Minister, Paula Bennett, released a good-feel statement to end the year.

Welfare reforms helping thousands get ahead

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett is delighted over 62,700 people went off benefit and into work in the first nine months of 2013 alone.

That does not however equate to overall benefit numbers dropping by the same number.

Here's the official graph for benefit numbers since National took office.

On the one hand, numbers did not soar in spite of a deep (and ongoing IMO) recession.

On the other, for all of the fanfare about welfare reforms, the picture doesn't offer a lot to get excited about.

Every ninth New Zealander is still dependent on the state.

Go into some neighbourhoods and it'll be every second or third.

Available but not accessible

Earlier this year I came across an MSD fact sheet "Children's contact with MSD services". The title of the paper  had been given to me in advance of its publication by someone outside of the Ministry. Periodically I had been searching the MSD website for it but nothing appeared. At some point I decided to search for it on google. To my surprise it appeared at the MSD website.

(I then wrote about the flawed analysis and skewed findings here. Rodney Hide wrote about it in the NBR).

What  intrigued me was that the fact sheet was un-indexed and unsearchable at the MSD website. It remains so as I write.

 Your search - Children’s contact with MSD services - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "Children’s contact with MSD services".

Suggestions:

• Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
• Try different keywords.
• Try more general keywords.

So I asked MSD why. They responded by saying that the fact sheet was available and providing the url. Also,

The Ministry's website is updated regularly with brochures, forms, fact sheets, media releases, publications and reports. We endeavour to ensure all our information is accessible (my emphasis) and if there are any publications not available  on the website that should be, we appreciate any feedback about  this.

I responded:

"I realise it is available.  My question asked why it isn't indexed. There is an important distinction. Under 'Publications and Resources' the fact sheet neither appears under 'C' nor the year of publication. Furthermore, a search of the site does not produce it. Therefore it is effectively inaccessible. Why is that the case?"

Here's their latest statement:

With regard to your question about why the “Children’s contact with MSD services” fact sheet is not indexed on the Ministry’s website.  As you will be aware, the Ministry have a number of publications and brochures across its various services and therefore it is not reasonable to index all of these on the Ministry’s website.  Publications like this are available in the Publications and Resources section of the Ministry’s website and “Children’s contact with MSD services” is a searchable phrase through various website search engines.

So there you go. If you just happen to hit on the right 'phrase' you will find the paper. But not if you look for it at the MSD website. It is effectively buried.

MSD does not understand the difference between 'available' and 'accessible'. Or perhaps they do.

I also asked for the associated spreadsheets on September 24, 2013. 

Do you think I've received them almost three months later?

Children continue to be added to benefits

As mentioned previously, it gets increasingly difficult to get timely information out of MSD.  I only now have the complete answer to a question asked on September 12.

Proceeding on the basis that policies often provoke an anticipatory effect, I was interested in any data that might show one resulting from the government's well-publicised, controversial intention to deter people from adding a child to their benefit by work-testing them when the child turns one.

First, from a cabinet paper, we know that the annual average of 'subsequent children' born to parents on a benefit 2006 - 2010 was 4,800 annually.*

I have data from October 15, 2012 (when the subsequent child policy came into force) to June 30, 2013 - 8.5 months which shows 3,646 working age clients in receipt of a main benefit added a child.

If the data is simply extrapolated out over a full year, the rate at which people are adding children has actually increased slightly. Of course that might not prove to be the case if over the remaining period up to October 15, 2013 the number drops significantly.

There is one noticeable difference.

Of the annual 4,800 added in the period  2006 - 2010, 88 percent were added to the DPB.

Of the 3,646 added between October 15, 2012 and June 30, 2013, 81 percent were added to the DPB.

The primary difference lies in more people adding a child to the unemployment benefit, reflecting higher unemployment.

Of the most recent group, 54 percent were Maori, 24 percent were NZ European, a third were aged 24 or younger, and 13 percent were male. Again the difference between Maori and Pacific behaviour shows up with only 12 percent of the beneficiaries being Pacific Island - only a slight over-representation given their very young population.

Anyway, I guess the answer to my question is, no.

(*In a small number of cases the child could be adopted or put into the care of a non-parent or grand-parent.)

Opportunity cost of living wage

The living wage wage was calculated by the Lower Hutt Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit, based on a two parent, two children family. One parent works full time, the second works part-time. A correspondent,  Brian Scott, sent me his analysis of their faulty research which he'd submitted to the Wellington City Council. When they asked him “what would you do then” he sent the following:

 1 | P a g e
Brian Scott
Living Wage: Interesting Calculations for Cost / Benefit
Assuming objective is to make sure that 2 adult, 2 dependent households have a reasonable living wage.
Example 1
Two people (and 2 dependents). Each earn $14.10. One is Council employee.
Council pays employee $18.40. Partner stays on $14.10
Council will pay extra $8944
Household will gain by $3119 (pay more tax, get less in accommodation and working for families)
Central Government claims back $5825.
Cost to Ratepayers per dollar of employee benefit is $8944 / 3119 = $2.87
Or RETURN ON INVESTMENT TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVE is 0.348 ($1 cost produces 34cents benefit)

Example 2
Only 6% of households are 2 adults, 2 dependents. Council has 450 employees likely to be affected
by Living Wage policy.
Therefore, only 27 Council employees actually would need, according to LW assumptions, a pay rise
to $18.40.
Using Council papers, cost is $750,000 for 450 employees, average cost is $1667.
Cost to bring 27 employees up to $18.40 is 27 * $1667 = 44982 per year.
Cost to Ratepayers per dollar that achieves objective is $750,000 / $44,982 = $16.66
Or RETURN ON INVESTMENT TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVE is 0.06 ($1 cost produces 6 cents benefit)

Example 3
20 year old living at home, pays $100 board.
Net income after tax at $14.10 ph is $474 per week.
Net income after tax at $18.40 ph is $613 per week.
I would challenge the idea that this person needs a pay rise to get out of living in poverty.

Example 4
A cleaner who works for a private company may get paid about $4 less for the same job, (about $129
per week after tax), and may pay more in rates for the privilege.

Alternatives to address inequality in the community. (For $750,000) Opportunity Costs
Subsidise health services (37,500 visits at $20)
Subsidise food banks (helps non-Council employees without affecting benefits)
Subsidise travel costs (1875 children in low income families at $2 for 400 trips each)
Subsidise low income students’ school fees. (Perhaps scholarships of $300 for 2500 children)
Providing food at schools, of which I am particularly in favour.

The above suggestions could be targeted at ALL low income households in the community, at value
of close to dollar for dollar. Point is there are plenty of other ways, if it is deemed responsibility of
Council, to help low income families.

If the objective of the Council is to reduce inequality in the community, then Councillors are required
by Statute to consider alternatives that are efficient and effective. It is not acceptable to say “we
must do something, this is something, let’s do this”.

Note: Calculations may be slightly out due to rounding and there are not exactly 52 weeks in a year.

Blog's 8th birthday

Jeepers. 8 years ago today I wrote my first blog post. Thinking back, the 2005 election had just been fought and lost. ACT dropped to 2 MPs and despite National going close, three more years of Labour and the Greens was on the cards.

Seems a strange time to start a blog but I didn't feel defeated. Just frustrated. Labour seemed lost for welfare reform ideas but hellbent on greater wealth redistribution to the middle voters. After Maharey there was a succession of lacklustre Social Development ministers. Sue Bradford got a lot of air wave time. I was still nagging away about the paucity of robust statistical data and the futility of continuing to throw money at the problems caused by ...throwing money at problems.

Under National there has been more transparency. A good deal more data is reported, although MSD's performance in responding to OIAs is abysmal. I must write a separate post about that.

Generally, the public now knows more about what is driving child poverty and are able to voice their opposition to welfare misuse without getting shouted down as beneficiary bashers. The good thing about the left making this issue, alongside inequality, their platform for 2014, is plenty of opportunities arise to disagree with their analysis and solutions.

And continue to disagree, counter and dispute I will.

Census result - no change in ratio of one parent to two parent families

The graphic below shows one parent families as a percentage of all families dropping from 18.1 to 17.8 percent. Notice that percentage of two parent families has also dropped but by a bigger margin. A simple calculation shows that as a percentage of all families with children the proportions have stayed the same. 30.1 percent are single parent families. Same percentage as in 2006. Since single parent families make up the biggest percentage of poor families, this Census result isn't good news.

DomPost slates WCC's living wage

The DomPost has produced a great editorial pointing out the folly of a council-led living wage:

The stated aim of Wellington City Council's living wage policy is to reduce poverty and lift workplace morale and productivity. If only life were that simple.
It is not. Poverty can no more be eliminated at the stroke of a pen than world peace can be delivered by a beauty contestant wishing for it.

More

(On the same page my letter appears which is a distillation of this post.)