Infant mortality rate praised

When NZ led the world (but ignored Maori). From ODT's 100 years ago file:

Dr Barrett, in an article in the Argus, describes ''a demonstration of social organisation alike unique and impressive'' to which his attention was directed in New Zealand, the demonstration being the fact that the infantile mortality rate in the dominion has been reduced to 51 per 1000. This rate Dr Barrett contrasts with the rate in Australia (where it is 68 per 1000), with that in the United Kingdom (107 per 1000), and with the greatly higher rates in other countries.
From this comparison he proceeds to show that the infant mortality rate in Dunedin is much below that in any of the other cities in New Zealand; still further below that in any of the larger centres in Australia; and only a fraction of that in the congested cities of Europe. He emphasises his argument, so far as it is directed to show that the favourable position occupied by Dunedin is due to the methods initiated in this city, by taking the average mortality for varying periods since 1900 and by demonstrating that the death rate among infants in this city has been steadily reduced. Further than this, Dr Barrett quotes official returns to show that the reduction in the infant mortality in New Zealand is practically accounted for in its entirety by the reduction in the mortality from gastro-enteritis, which is produced by improper feeding.
''The examination of the various tables,'' he says, ''shows not only that New Zealand and Dunedin hold the record of the world, but that the infantile mortality in Dunedin has fallen to a rate which no one ever hoped to reach.''
When he seeks for an explanation of this circumstance, Dr Barrett considers and rejects the suggestion that climate, the milk supply, and the maternity home system in the dominion may severally or in combination account for the exceptionally favourable death rate among children under 12 months of age in New Zealand, and concludes that the reduction of the waste of infant life in the dominion is due to the special and practical education that is being spread among the people through the organisation and activity of the Society for the Health of Women and Children, which was established in 1907. The conclusion is one that is probably not accepted by everyone living in the midst of the operations of the society.

Latest Roy Morgan Poll

From Scoop

Poll March 3-16: Nat 45.5% Lab 31.5% Grn 14%

Friday, 21 March 2014, 5:22 pm
Press Release: Roy Morgan Research National (45.5%) now neck and neck with Labour/ Greens (45.5%); John Key calls election for September 20 as scandal involving Justice Minister Judith Collins sends National support lower

Greens and the religion of non-judgmentalism

According to Green MP Jan Logie:

"... the government has continued to characterise people requiring income support as work shy, drug taking, criminals who don’t care for their children, and have been happy to misrepresent the financial situation of people who have publically challenged their decisions."

I disagree. Frequently Ministers say things like...

Chester Borrows:

 The overwhelming majority of people receiving welfare assistance do the right thing and follow the rules. Unfortunately, a tiny few see our welfare system as a target.

Paula Bennett:

  I know that most beneficiary parents are acting in the best interest of their children...

Yet, barring the anecdotal evidence, it is statistically true that not all beneficiaries want to work (a small telephone survey conducted in 2005 by MSD  showed that 61 percent of DPB recipients were "very" or "fairly" interested in looking for work, 36 percent freely admitted they were not interested.)

The incidence of drug and alcohol abuse is higher amongst beneficiaries (Ministry of Health research)

And beneficiaries cycle in and out of prison at a much higher rate than non-beneficiaries.

But the Greens do not believe in freedom of speech when it contravenes their religion of non-judgmentalism. Nobody can talk about real problems and possible solutions  lest it offends some other group or individual.

China and the quid pro quo

Published in today's DomPost and worth reading. A highly readable look into what's happening in China and why NZ stands to profit. This resonated with me after our recent Asian trip and tour around Shenzhen which has grown into a massive city in just 30 years. Our guide, a young Chinese father of one (about to be two at a price) spoke glowingly about NZ. The following is a more formal expression of why:

 It must be easy for New Zealanders to take for granted the very many advantages your small country has. The beauty of the landscape, the clean air, the easy access to fresh water. If you have always lived here, these things might seem pretty ordinary. But they are not at all ordinary, and nor is the stability of your political system and the easy way you do business.

More

This isn't a chicken or egg scenario

As Conservative Perspective and Bob McCoskrie have already pointed out, Simon Collins has his theory the wrong way around. He says poverty is driving nuclear family break-up. I say it's vice versa.

My response by way of a letter to the editor:

Dear Editor

According to the NZ Herald, March 20, "Surprise Census figures suggest that poverty may be breaking up the nuclear family." Analyst Paul Callister is quoted saying, "...the welfare system meant many couples were better off by separating."

For a nuclear family to "break-up" it has to exist first. In 2012 the proportion of unmarried births was 48 percent. In the same year, 21 percent of babies born were dependent on welfare - usually the DPB - by Christmas. Around half of these children will spend 7 or more years in the benefit system.

It isn't poverty driving family disintegration. It's the availability and heavy use of welfare. This is particularly prevalent amongst Maori because welfare incomes are close to incomes from low paid, unskilled jobs.

As the article notes, "Education is also a powerful factor." Exactly. In time females with qualifications and aspirations may choose not to embark on a career of poverty-stricken single parenthood. Then again, as long as it's a seemingly 'easy' option the pattern of single mothering and subsequent hardship will continue.

"Free the poor"

No surprises here:

Economic Freedom Helps Poverty More Than Government Aid

March 19, 2014
Economic freedom does more to alleviate poverty than government aid, says Julian Adorney for the Foundation for Economic Education.
A study from Daniel L. Bennett and Richard K. Vedder analyzes economic freedom and income inequality in the United States, finding that economic freedom decreases inequality, benefiting the poor and middle class more than the wealthy.
Looking at the 50 states, and using limits on government to measure economic freedom (the authors looked at size of government, level of taxation and labor market regulation), the study found that most gains went to the wealthy during the initial stages of economic freedom. However, at a certain point (and 21 states had already hit this point by 2004), that result shifts, leading income inequality to decline as states grow more and more free.

More

Cunliffe promises to ease up on prosecuting benefit fraud

In a lengthy interview with Gordon Campbell, David Cunliffe gave the following answer:

Campbell: We’ve got ten minutes. I haven’t asked about your welfare policy, so I’ll make it specific. We all oppose fraud. Does Labour oppose the government’s new welfare fraud policy whereby the partners of welfare fraudsters will be criminally liable for the fraud, and for the repayment of the entire amount – and not simply for the amount from which they might have indirectly benefitted. If re-elected will Labour retain this provision or scrap it ?

Cunliffe: Scrap it.

Here's associate Social Development Minister Chester Borrows speaking about the proposals:

This bill deals with one particularly troubling aspect of welfare fraud, which we refer to as relationship fraud. Relationship fraud is when someone is receiving a benefit that is dependent on them being single, such as a sole parent support—the old DPB—yet they are in a marriage-type relationship. In this case, their relationship is not simply part of their private life; they are being given money by the taxpayer based on that fact. By failing in their obligations to tell the Ministry of Social Development or even lying to hide their relationship, they continue to receive money that they are not entitled to. The reality of this offending is that it can occur only when the partner is present, but it takes two to tango. The current law means that the beneficiary, usually the woman, is held accountable for her fraud, while the partner often gets off scot-free. We say this is wrong. This bill will create a new offence to hold those partners to account.

These changes strike a careful balance. They recognise that new relationships are never simple. When a partner is genuinely unaware of the fraud, they will not be liable. But if the partner knew about the fraud or turned a blind eye to it, they will be held to account for their part in the crime. I want to make it clear that these changes will not disadvantage women in a violent relationship. Ministry of Social Development investigators are extensively trained to deal sensitively with violent relationships, and the law on this point is clear that violence in a relationship will often mean it is not, for welfare purposes, a relationship in the nature of marriage. The last thing we want to do is to remove the financial lifeline that might help a battered woman extract herself from that situation. These changes will not remove this protection.

The reasons why liability for the "entire amount" is incurred are explained here.

You don't see me making a big fuss about welfare fraud. That's because so much 'legitimate' welfare receipt is 'illegitimate' in my mind anyway. Welfare abuse, welfare misuse.... it's all a rort. Welfare is claimed by thousands of people who would in the past have made their own way in life. Lawful entitlement does not confer moral entitlement.

But an intention to scrap this proposed  legislation shows which side Cunliffe is on. And it isn't the taxpayer's.

Asian incomes rise rapidly

Prompted by the NZ Herald sob-series on Closing the Gaps I thought I'd take a look at Asian incomes. They are rising rapidly. In only 5 years they have gone from having the lowest median income to second highest.

The chart below shows the median income for individuals aged 15 and older.

Back in 2009 the median Asian income was much further away from the average - 360 versus 512. In 2013 it's 500 versus 583. But for Maori and Pacific the opposite pattern applies - the gap between median and average is growing. The gap for NZ Europeans is steady. Equality is rising amongst Asians. Most have improving incomes.

The data is given according to source. Asian self-employment is much higher than Maori or Pacific.

In 2013 (June quarter) the respective figures for income for self-employment were

NZ European 97
Maori 28
Pacific 9
Asian 53

Income from self-employment has dropped away for all groups but particularly Pacific.

In 2013 the respective figures for income from government transfers was

NZ European 99
Maori 122
Pacific 106
Asian 53

No remarkable 5 year change for any group.

Income from investments

NZ European 43
Maori 6
Pacific 5
Asian 18

Again not much 5 year change.

All groups recorded increases in income from wages and salaries but for Pacific is was almost negligible at 1%. The Asian increase was greatest at 20%, followed by NZ European at 14% and Maori at 10%.

Working and investing is paying off for Asians. It's the age old story of how to get out of poverty. It's not having kids you can't afford and relying on the government to bail you out.

Update on Britain's "welfare state"

It is nine years since James Bartholomew published "The Welfare State We're In".

It has recently been re-published and  includes an introduction looking at what has changed in the interim. You can read it here.

"The good news keeps coming and the bad news gets worse. Much has changed and nearly everything stays the same. The disjunction is between, on the one hand, the words, intentions and actions of both politicians and the public, and, on the other hand, the reality on the ground....overall incentives [to work] are being modestly improved... there has been progress but it is not dramatic change [but] far more lone parents are now expected to work. It is a big and necessary change...the fact remains that mass unemployment is still a permanent feature of modern Britain...the coalition government has worked hard to make significant changes in welfare benefits ... but they do not go far enough to rid us of the misery of permanent mass unemployment...there are still 1.5 million unemployed. A little under 2.5 million are on an incapacity benefit. The proportion of births outside marriage has risen still further from 40 percent in 2001 to 47 percent in 2011. This compares to only 6 percent back in 1961. There are 3.2 million children being raised by sole parents...truancy from school remains high....illiteracy is widespread. It is true that crime appears to be falling which is welcome...there are some reasons for hope but for the time being the welfare state we're in remains pretty grim."

Quote of the day

Timely after the political week past:

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

(Hat-tip FFF)

"Insulting the rich for giving to charity"

The Centre for Independent Studies highlights a wonderful example of statistic abuse and nasty statism:

Insulting the rich for giving to charity

Do the rich give too much money to charity or too little? Both, according to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald this week, 'Freedom & Control Are Why the Rich Are Really Charitable.' Remarkably, the article manages to insult the charitable donations of thousands of Australians not once but twice, and in contradictory ways.

The basis for the article is the Tax Office's data for charitable deductions from 2010-11, data which can be interpreted in a number of different ways. The SMH chose to compare donors in the very top band (those making $1,000,000 or more), who gave away an average of 1.8% of their taxable incomes, and those in the very bottom band (those making $6,000 or less), who gave away an average of 22%.

This is a misleading breakdown for several reasons. Those in the lowest tax band who give to charity may give generously, but very few in that band give at all - only 6.3%, compared with 63.8% of those in the top band. If non-donors were included in the calculations for that bracket, the average would come out to 1.4% of taxable income.

Secondly, a large number of those in the $6,000-or-less band are retirees with significant net worth but little income, who, as Professor Myles McGregor Lowndes explains, 'give away substantial amounts so they don't have to pay income tax.'

Both bands came in higher than the national average for charitable deductions, which was 0.35% of taxable income.

These figures hardly justify the SMH reporter's claim that 'the rich pinch their pennies,' and they definitely do not justify Community Council for Australia CEO David Crosbie's assertion in the article that the poor 'feel a sense of collective ownership of our wellbeing,' while the rich 'tend to be more disconnected from the broader community.'

The second half of the article's one-two punch is even more objectionable. The reporter insinuates that the rich actually give too much money to charity, since those dollars would have otherwise gone to the government in taxes.

'Taxpayers cannot control how public funds are distributed but because charitable donations are voluntary, they let people feel in control of at least part of the tax pie,' the reporter writes. She adds: 'Whether individuals are more effective than the government at redistributing wealth is questionable.'

Instead of referring to 'the tax pie' in the above quote, the reporter might more accurately have referred to 'their own money.' The 'control' to which she gives such a derogatory spin is in fact a perfectly laudable desire to put one's donations where they will do the most good, even if that means less for the tax man. The proper response to such generosity is not 'Too much!' or 'Too little!' but simply 'Thank you.'

Helen Rittelmeyer is a policy analyst at The Centre for Independent Studies.

 

Stating the blindingly obvious

From NCPA today:

Why does the minimum wage fail to alleviate net poverty? Sabia points to two reasons: adverse employment hours and effects, and because few minimum wage beneficiaries actually live in poor households....

and

...wage increases only redistribute income between poor and near-poor households.

More

Ripping off a school

What a couple of first class arseholes these two are:

A principal and her husband siphoned off more than $30,000 from a decile one school in South Auckland and splashed out on themselves.
Rather than the money going towards pupil education at Mayfield Primary School in Otara, Colleen Margaret Gray, 66, and Bruce Kenneth Gray, 65, jetted to Australia and to London.
Colleen Gray also used the school credit card for food at Mecca at Mission Bay and Francoli Bar and Restaurant in Ellerslie.
Part-way through their judge-alone trial in the Auckland District Court yesterday, the Grays admitted defrauding the school of more than $30,000.

It shouldn't matter what decile school it was, or where, but somehow stealing from one of the poorest schools in South Auckland particularly jars.

Can't help wondering though if the funding system whereby the poorest school gets substantially more than the richest leaves more cash available to easily defraud without  detection?

I hope they both get hefty sentences.

Marriage and student loans

The headline of this Acton Institute article implied a problem for the marriages of young people with student loans:

Student Loan Debt is Not Just an Economic Problem, It’s a Marriage Problem

In fact it is about how divorced  parents contribute far less to their offspring's college education (and what the government should do about it.) Coincidentally it reflected a recent conversation I had with a friend. After a marriage break up she had not been able to give her children the sort of financial University support planned pre-divorce. I was explaining (or trying to justify) why we decided to continue to support our oldest rather than expect him to take out a student loan.1/ We can afford to but 2/ more importantly, I don't want to see my children starting out with debt. It can be habit-forming. But it must also influence relationship formation and stability. Which is what I thought the headline referred to.

Anyway back to the Acton piece. It quotes research from Rice University:

 Married parents not only contributed more in absolute terms to their children’s education than divorced parents ($4,700 median amount per year vs. $1,500 per year; p<.001) but also gave a larger proportion of their income to their children’s education (8 percent vs. 6 percent, p<.05). Married parents also outscored remarried parents in absolute ($4,700 per year vs. $2,490; p<.001) and proportional terms (8 percent of income vs. 5 percent; p<.001). Moreover, married parents covered a significantly greater proportion of their children’s financial needs, as defined by the cost of the college in which they are enrolled minus aid. Even as children of divorced and remarried parents were found to have significantly lower levels of financial need, married parents nonetheless covered 77 percent of the financial need of their children, whereas divorced parents covered just 42 percent of the financial need of their children (p<.001) and remarried parents 53 percent (p<.05). Using ordinary least-square regressions to predict parental contributions, the researchers found that parental marital status even trumped parental education and income as the determining factor.

If my theory also holds water, this is yet another example of how marriage breakdowns contribute to overall reduced, probably inter-generational wealth and greater inequality.

The politics of child poverty

Over on NZCPD today Muriel Newman writes "Alleviating child poverty"

and my accompanying effort is "The politics of child poverty".

Something about the way the Left is presenting the ‘child poverty’ problem doesn’t stack up. When interviewed, Green co-Leader Metiria Turei repeatedly stresses that 2 in 5 of officially poor children come from working homes. Their parents are doing their best to provide for their children but not making ends meet. It’s unacceptable, she says.

They probably are doing their best and deserve respect for their work effort. Some wages are low and some rents are high. Certainly that presents a problem for those parents. But for Turei and other anti-poverty advocates to continually highlight this group when attempting to influence voters implies there is something less laudable about being benefit-dependent. Not a sentiment normally associated with the Left.

So what’s going on?

Communists lament - McCarten will "forestall revolutionary change"

The World Socialist Web Site is so far left that Matt McCarten is right:

McCarten has “a lifetime of service” in defending capitalism by establishing political safety valves to divert unrest in the working class.

More

Go for it WINZ

What did you do the last time you found out you'd been successful in getting a job? I remember it well. Returning from the UK in the early 1990s it took an interminable time to find work. When I got the nod, after a number of nopes, I was ecstatic. But I played a mean trick on my Mum. She'd came rushing in  from work anxious to know if I'd heard. I feigned disappointment quickly mirrored in her own face. Then very quickly told her the good news and that I was pulling her leg. My brothers and Dad were all in on the joke.  She's so emotionally transparent sometimes we can't resist pulling her leg. But boy, were we all excited and cheering.

Now that's what I thought people did. They whoop, punch the air, go out for a celebration.That's the real world.

But not according to some miserable types bitching about Work and Income cheering when a client gets a job.

Work and Income office staff are breaking into applause or sounding hooters when beneficiaries find work.
The celebrations have been labelled patronising and embarrassing but Work and Income claims clients enjoy them.

Well I would bloody well love it. Apart from which, aren't those trying to help people find work entitled to celebrate their part in the achievement?

And check out the cartoon Bromhead has created.

THAT is patronising. Applauding someone who has just landed a job, possibly their first ever, isn't.

Solo mother Candice Benson was stunned to see a round of applause erupt after a jobseeker at Work and Income's Lower Hutt office found work on Thursday.
"One of the clients got up to leave and people just erupted into applause," Benson said. "He looked like he was trying to get out of there pretty swiftly," she added. Benson conceded there could be positive intentions but job seekers already felt "humiliated and degraded" and had complex reasons for needing benefits.

Oh get over yourself. If you are at WINZ you are asking for help. You are not in a position to then moan about the way in which it is delivered.

If WINZ was publicly humiliating people who were failing to get work I would be mortified, but celebrating their success???

What the Left want you to think

In a column ironically written to highlight some truths about poverty and inequality, Brian Fallow quotes leftist economist Brian Easton:

The majority of the poor are parents with jobs and their children (although they may have had only one or two), living in their own home albeit usually with a mortgage.

I think that's wrong.

From the Household Incomes Report, p147

Figure H.5

Proportion of poor children who live in ‘workless’ households (AHC 60%, fixed line)

 (The top line is workless/part-time, the bottom line is workless. Reproduction has changed the line appearance.)

 Then from p138,

47% of poor children lived with their families in private rental accommodation, and another 21% in HNZC homes

How do these two pieces of information square with Easton's claim that "The majority of the poor are parents with jobs and their children (although they may have had only one or two), living in their own home albeit usually with a mortgage" ?

(I realise he is talking 'parents' whereas I am talking 'children' but there can't be much in the difference statistically.)

Child poverty and parental choice

Yesterday I referred to the mistake made by Statistics NZ/Treasury in relation to estimated household incomes. Accommodation supplement ($1.2 billion across 300,000 homes) was double-counted. That resulted in the poorest incomes being over-stated. It didn't materially change anything for people in those homes. But as I use the graphs from the Household Incomes Report quite frequently here are two of the revised.

The first shows perhaps the most commonly used measure of inequality - the Gini coefficient. Flat or "vaguely" (as Bill English puts it) downwards over the past ten years.

Figure D.17  REVISED

Inequality in New Zealand: the Gini coefficient

The next shows proportion of children living in households that fall below 60 or 50  percent of the median equivalised income After Housing Costs. The relative line shows the proportion according to that years median. The constant value line shows proportion according to the median at a fixed year. (The original graph is below the revised).

Figure F.4

Proportion of children below selected thresholds (AHC):  REVISED

fixed line (CV) and moving line (REL) approaches compared

 

The picture is not as rosy. The revised graph clearly shows the impact of the recession and increased unemployment. However the incline is nowhere near as steep as that prior to the early nineties recession and the blue and red lines seemed to have arrested.

That red line on the revised chart tells it own story though. These are mainly children in DPB homes. The proportion hovers around 20% through the 1990s and early 2000s. When we had the lowest unemployment in the OECD and what was considered an 'economic boom', the percentage only dropped to 16-17 percent. There's your 'child poverty'. The new 'normal' is one in five children born onto a benefit directly or becoming dependent shortly afterwards. That's largely a parental choice.

MSD research:

 Throughout most of the 1990s around 25% were included in a benefit on the date of their birth or very soon after. Since 2000 this proportion has declined to 20% of children born in 2005 and 2006, and 18% of children born in 2007.

Figure 2  Estimated percentage of children included in a main benefit at birth, by birth cohort¹¹

My research updated the numbers as follows:

2008 21%
2009 23%
2010 23%
2100 22%
2012 21%

The isn't a new subject for me. But it seems it needs repeating frequently. Having kids on welfare is the major driver behind child poverty.