The higher the voter turn-out, the stronger the preference for change

I was looking at the voter turn-out and noticed that the higher turn-out electorates had a stronger preference for change. David made a graph for me.

The correlation is pretty strong.

(Left-click to enlarge)

A third of people couldn't be bothered

Even when voting is made as easy as a tick and a trip to the postbox, a third of people can't be bothered.

Probably the same people who don't vote in general elections.

People don't have to vote and I am utterly opposed to compulsory voting. For selfish reasons, I don't want someone who doesn't give a fig cancelling out the vote of someone who is engaged and voting with purpose and reason. Me:-)

But for all our vaunting and celebration of democracy, a segment much bigger than it should be, just doesn't give a f--k.

A profoundly stupid idea

Breaking with normal practice, I am blogging on the same subject in successive posts.

Giving every teenager $200 a week when they turn 18 is a profoundly stupid idea.

The most meaningful reform National has made is scrapping the old cash benefit available to youth and young parents. Instead their income from the state is managed and there are tight strings attached. They get a tiny sum of cash and can only increase it by meeting certain challenges. They are heavily mentored, parented in a way they have probably never been before. The idea is to get educational qualifications, work skills and self esteem into them before it is too late.

An unconditional $200 a week would reverse this whole approach. It would be madness.

It would replicate the mindset of generational dependency seen in families that encourage - even expect - their kids to go on the dole or DPB as soon as possible to boost the family's income.

Its a truly frightening prospect.

Labour's $40 billion policy (updated)

The universal basic income.

$40 billion. Yes. That's roughly what it will cost to give every New Zealander aged 18 or over $11,000 annually.

Putting aside questions of affordability, who will vote for this?

Pensioners?

It's well under what Super pays so I don't think so - not en masse anyway.

Beneficiaries? There's mention of supplementary transfers for the most disadvantaged. Vague. I doubt it.

Students? Possibly. But they'll have to be convinced to pay the substantially higher tax such a policy demands. After all they expect to form the most highly-taxed bracket ultimately.

Self-employed and business owners? They won't be keen on higher taxes either. And they aren't silly. They understand the senselessness of pay without productivity.

You would think there was some sort of massive employment crisis yet the unemployment rate is 5.3%.

Not 15.3% or even 10.3%

Time and again there have been points in history when technology has been tipped to make man redundant. Yet jobs keep inventing themselves.

And what would the effect on other services be? Education, Health, Law and Order?

Credit to Bill English for calling it without equivocation:

National's Finance Minister Bill English said a universal basic income "would be very expensive and likely discourage work".

Well, perhaps he could have been a tad more dismissive.

But nobody could put it past Labour, with their mid-2000s record of bribery, to craft this craziness into policy in time for the next election.

Update; I had forgotten Treasury's work in this area. The following is a comment I just posted at Kiwiblog 

At the request of the Welfare Working Group Treasury did some modelling on Guaranteed Minimum Incomes in 2010:

“An income of $300 per week is just over the average (mean) benefit income – therefore a plausible minimum income. However, paying a guaranteed income of $300 per week to every New Zealander aged 16 years and over, excluding superannuitants, comes at considerable fiscal cost. The fiscal cost
of the GMI proposed in the first model (Model 1) is $44.5 billion (including the cost of all social transfers – in particular, New Zealand Superannuation payments, would cost $55.5 billion), requiring
a flat personal tax rate of approximately 45.4%. Note that this tax rate and the others considered below are cost-neutral – not fiscally neutral – as personal taxes currently raise approximately $6
billion in excess of current social assistance costs.
However, a consequence of Model 1 is that the higher personal taxes rates lower post-tax New Zealand Superannuation payments by approximately 44% on average. Therefore, a second model
(Model 2) was developed that removed New Zealand Superannuation and extended the GMI payment to superannuitants. As expected, the fiscal cost of the GMI increased to $52.6 billion ($55.6 billion including all social transfers) requiring a higher flat personal tax rate of 48.6%. However, it did  improve the outcomes for superannuitants, evident by declining poverty levels.”

http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/WelfareWorkingGroup/Downloads/Working%20papers/Treasury-A-Guaranteed-Minimum-Income-for-New-Zealand%20.PDF

Treasury concluded:

“The GMI scheme proposed by the Welfare Working Group is a significant policy change with large
economic consequences. The scheme is fiscally very costly and would not necessarily achieve its  main goal of reducing poverty. The high personal tax rates required to fund the scheme are highly
distortionary to the labour market and to savings and investment decisions, and would be likely to
induce a significant behavioural response. This has damaging effects on the tax system and economic
growth. “

On-line bullying the new fall guy

Social media has become the new fall guy for everything wrong with teenagers. Older generations are always looking for new evils to explain the behaviours and characteristics of teenagers. It's like blaming rock and roll in the fifties, and other nasty American influences on young people.

Here's today's silly headline

Children are more resilient at 10 years old than 15, study finds 

"Research shows children are at their most resilient at age 10... Ten-year-olds are at the top of their game, it's the time in their lives they are most likely to feel happy, confident and ready to take on the world. But by age 15, that resilience has plummeted. So what happens on the way to those mid-teen years?" 

Puberty, you egg.

 At 10 life is uncomplicated.

I can't believe anyone would think that the difference between 10 and 15 is a mystery waiting to be solved. Surely I will read on and get to it.

 The 15-year-olds, usually in year 9, are far less likely to feel encouraged at school, to feel safe at school, to have an adult who listens to them or to feel "very hopeful". And in one clue to why there is such a marked difference between the older and younger children, 15-year-olds were more than twice as likely to have been bullied online in the past year.

Oh, on-line bullying. Of course.

Except, on-line bullying is a symptom, not a cause.

Keep going.

As to why there is such a drop in confidence towards the mid-teen years, Fuller says parents often feel less close to their kids during adolescence and involvement in community activities and groups typically drops off around this age.

Having parents less involved and peers more involved is again an effect of how the individual is adjusting to the changes his or her body and brain is going through.

Having read the whole article, 'puberty' didn't get a look in. Must have gone out of fashion.

Here's some sense from Psychology Today:

 For most young people, puberty catches them at a bad time - during the early adolescent years (around ages 9 - 13) when they are separating from the shelter of childhood and begin striving for social belonging and place among their society of peers. Already feeling adrift from family and at sea in this brave new world of more social independence, puberty demonstrates how they are also out of control of their body. Developmental insecurity and early adolescence go hand in hand.For most young people, puberty is the enemy of self-esteem.

How National is killing Labour

It is still odd to me to read questions and answers that would have sat very comfortably with the last Labour govt. Just substitute Anne Tolley with Steve Maharey and you get my drift:

9. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister for Social Development: How is low inflation supporting a real increase in superannuation?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Thanks to the strong financial management of this Government, superannuation has increased by over 34 percent since 2008, which is double the rate of inflation of 15.5 percent in that same time. As this Government has committed to keeping superannuation and veterans pension rates at 66 percent of average income, both rates will increase by 2.73 percent on 1 April. This means that, in addition to lower living costs, our superannuitants are better off, with an extra $15.74 a week for a married couple, $10.23 a week for a single person living alone, and $9.44 for a single person sharing accommodation.
Matt Doocey: In addition to superannuation, what other supports are set to increase on 1 April?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: On 1 April changes introduced as part of the child hardship package will come into effect. That means benefit rates for families with children will rise by $25 a week after tax—the first real increase in 43 years. Given the falling cost of living, this is a significant increase for these families on a benefit. Working for Families rates will also increase by $12.50 for low-income working families, and $24.50 for very low-income working families. The child hardship package reaches over half a million children and will help ease the depth of hardship experienced by families in New Zealand’s lowest-income households.

It's super politics when staying in government is the top priority. But is it fiscally responsible? Is it going to help low income people in the long-term?

Reducing the gap between income from work and income from welfare is very risky. National of the early 1990s did the very opposite to National of 2016. It increased the gap in an explicit effort to get more people working.

Both Labour and National agree that work is the best way out of poverty. I have records of both Helen Clark and John Key making this assertion.

The real problem is, neither have acted like they believe it.

Add too that the John Key-led government  is now fully embracing and boosting what he once called "communism by stealth".

Labour have been utterly out-Laboured.

David Seymour then inserted a supplementary:

David Seymour: How long after the current Prime Minister’s retirement will the Government raise the age of entitlement to New Zealand superannuation?
Mr SPEAKER: No. Oh, I will let the Minister address it. It is a marginal question, I have to accept.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That is so far in the future I could not even contemplate it.

So again we have a National government not only bragging about increasing Super payments but promising an increase in recipients by way of the ageing population with no change to qualifying age.

They can hold their National voters so long as the pretence that nobody has to pay for it lasts.

But they can't continue to ramp-up redistribution without increasing revenue or cutting services.

Forget P houses - focus on the P babies

The story being carried by most media this morning relates to P contamination in brand new state houses:

Nearly a quarter of homes built for a brand new state housing development in Christchurch have already been contaminated with P less than a year later.
In most cases, the tenants were single mums with small children, including four toddlers under two.
Social Housing Minister Paula Bennett said she found the figures "shockingly high" and the age at which some children were being exposed to P, or meth, was an "extreme concern".
"Four of them are two years or younger, so wee babies. It's at a time when they are most susceptible to their environment and they need the healthiest environment they can possibly get. There are some quite serious health effects [from P] with skin and respiratory conditions. And equally you have to question if its a healthy and safe environment. "

The public has every right to take an interest in this. They are paying for it. Paying people to use P around babies - and quite possibly before their births (but that's another matter).

In NZ CYF advises it's social workers:

How does methamphetamine use affect the care of a child or young person?

While methamphetamine use isn't an automatic indicator of unsuitability to care for a child or young person, it does affect a parent/caregiver's ability on different levels. Low-intensity users can generally still function but may experience mood swings. When high, users can feel 'good', be alert, and have a high level of physical activity.

Methamphetamine users may experience increasing feelings of depression, lethargy and loss of energy when 'coming down' after use. These symptoms can impair the user's interest in caring for their children, depriving them of basic physical and emotional needs. This period can last for months during which there is a high probability of substance re-use and an increased need for sleep.

There is a P crisis and there is a child abuse crisis. Or am I overstating the situation?

When National came to power they launched an attack on P. Is it working? From the Drug Foundation:

One of the Prime Minister’s major allies (and instruments) in the war on meth is Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess. He was skeptical of the downward trend in the statistics the last time I interviewed him in 2014, and eight months on, in light of these two enormous busts, he shows no sign of changing his mind.
“I think we’re probably getting mixed messages around that,” he says into the phone, the wryness in his delivery as reliable as ever.
“Some of the survey data, and Chris Wilkins’ data out of Massey, suggests that the numbers are stable or potentially diminishing. But balanced against that, we’re seeing pretty significant amounts of drugs either being manufactured or imported.”

I am in the legalise- all- drugs camp because prohibition is a failure on so many counts, here and internationally.

But when users expose their children pre and post birth, it's a matter for the law.

(Someone asked me at the ACT conference what I thought about orphanages. I am inclined to believe that properly run, they would be better places than some of these toxic shit-holes children are being raised in).

Rates rise 14 percent in 3 years

The local authority statistics were released on Friday. The tables make interesting reading.

Rates collected have risen 14 percent when comparing December quarters 2012 to 2015.

We haven't seen our rates go up that much. Some poor sod has seen his go up by more.

But we aren't getting more for our money.  Purchases and operating expenditure is up by a mere 1.7%. The big jumps are in interest and depreciation.

Well, it's local body election year. I'd be looking for candidates promising to keep rates within the margin of inflation at least. Promising some fiscal responsibility.

The $1.155 billion collected in the December quarter 2012 kept to current inflation would have been $1.183 billion in 2015

NOT $1.321

Rates up equal rents up. Again it's the poorest who bear the brunt. But it's big-spending councils who are squealing about living wages and poverty. How long will it take them to figure out what Winston Churchill did.

"Can a people tax themselves into prosperity? Can a man stand in a bucket and lift himself up by the handle?" 1904, Free Trade Hall, Manchester

"Prawn addiction"

I hope Jenesa Jeram, a smart young woman from The NZ Initiative doesn't mind my posting her piece from their newsletter this week. She is a breath of fresh air. And this is very clever at more than one level:


Too many New Zealanders are walking around with a shameful addiction.

Your family members, colleagues or even spouse may be secretly struggling. Deluded by unrealistic expectations of romance and physical attractiveness, they should know it is okay to seek help.

I am, of course, talking about the embarrassing yet unshakeable addiction to TV3’s The Bachelor.

Just kidding. The Bachelor is awful, but apparently socially acceptable. Olympian Nick Willis’ prawn addiction* on the other hand? That’s shocking enough to make mainstream news.

My problem with this coverage is not that it made me feel uncomfortable. It is that the whole story is so utterly boring.

I probably should have stopped reading after such insightful gems like “It [prawn] is not sexy nor appealing.” Why watch it then? I don’t think The Bachelor is sexy or appealing, but I don’t expect the Herald will trip over themselves to publish my opinion. It’s a matter of taste.

More problematic is the modern characterisation of addiction: defined as pleasurable activities that become compulsive and interfere with normal life.

How very perceptive. People like doing things that make them feel good, and may even go out of their way to do them. Things that are pleasurable stimulate the pleasure centres of the brain.

But with such a loose definition, why just stop at prawn?

Last year health experts tried convincing us that cheese is as addictive as crack cocaine. Yet cheese-related crime rates remain low. Even in Remuera, where they supply the good stuff (Roquefort, of course).

Other addictive foods identified by Otago University’s National Addiction Centre include ice cream, muesli bars and mayonnaise.

I think I’d be more scared of meeting a methamphetamine addict than an ice cream addict at the end of a dark alleyway. And I can’t imagine a muesli bar addict experiencing Trainspotting-esque withdrawals.

Maybe Willis sharing how compulsive behaviour affected his marriage could help other couples going through the same.

But labelling everything enjoyable as addictive (thus dangerous) is unhelpful. Let’s not forget that love messes with the brain too, and can make people do crazy things.

Besides, what is problematic in one marriage may be the secret to another marriage’s happy ending.

*I’m not talking about prawns here, but the more common term for “adult entertainment” may not have made it through the work email filters. 

HRC calls for adoption laws to stop discriminating

It amuses me that the Human Rights Commission is calling for  adoption laws to cease to discriminate. Here is a list of how that currently occurs:

• The requirement for sole male applicants to prove “special circumstances” before being permitted to adopt a female child (when there was no such requirement for a single female to prove “special circumstances)
• The ability for the Court to dispense with the consent of birth fathers in some circumstances before a child was adopted (but not birth mothers )
• The inability of civil union partners or same sex de facto couples to adopt.
• The absence of a requirement for unmarried opposite sex or same sex partners of a sole applicant for an adoption order to give consent (even when the couple is living together at the time of the application).
• The ability to dispense with consent of a disabled parent or guardian before his or her child is adopted.
• The prohibition on persons under the age of 25 adopting a child.
• In relation to the Adult Adoption Information Act –the prohibition on a person under the age of 20 obtaining a copy of his or her original birth certificate.

But the greatest discrimination of all is that non-Maori must observe whatever is dictated by adoption laws yet Maori are exempt.

Adding further irony, only days ago parliament was debating the inclusion of whangai adoptions in entitlement to paid parental leave:

Employment law reforms to extend paid parental leave has included the eligibility of family guardians of whangai children.
The term whangai is used to describe the traditional Maori custom of informal adoption, and had never been formally recognised in legislation on parental leave.
The Government's Employment Standards Legislation Bill passed its second reading on Thursday. Among other changes, it looked to extend paid parental leave from 16 to 18 weeks. The changes would need to be in effect from 1 April to fulfil Government announcements.

So whangai should have official legal status if there is some benefit to be attained.

Maori want to think carefully about what might/will follow. Certainly loss of sovereignty over this particular traditional custom.

Quote of the Day

Worrycrats, as I call them, are a special breed of totalitarian bureaucrats who spawn rapidly as society is socialized. These people concern themselves with our health, education, welfare, auto safety, drug intake, diet, and what have you. Worrycrats today outnumber any other professionals in history, so rapidly have they proliferated.

– Leonard E. Read, The Freeman [April 1971]

And that was in 1971!

(Hat tip FFF)

Update: And right on cue here comes another addition

"WHALE OIL: CHARTER SCHOOL’S RIGHT OF REPLY"

Whale Oil has carried a response from one of the Charter Schools. Excellent work SB.

The writer included the DomPost among the "faceless" critics. This is just an excerpt from his full response.

Here is the thing though. Every person who is writing this nonsense in their distant and/or faceless mode ignores the children and their extended families. They have come to SAMS to receive an outstanding academic education and a high level of care. We work 24/7 to the best of our ability to provide that. They have exercised a choice to come and get an education that they do not believe is being offered elsewhere and they want to break the cycles the see parts of their communities.
Mr Hipkins has been asked to visit many times. He hasn’t had time during the last two years and three months. He could even come and explain to our families why he intends to shut down their school. To Mr Hipkins and the faceless commentators here is a photo of our kids – each of them represent families and communities. I have only shown you their backs to be consistent with your approach. When any of you can make some time to build some integrity into your thoughts and writing – come and meet them – I think you will like them and love hearing about their experiences and ambitions.
– Academic Advisor Alwyn Poole

How to stop children being added to existing benefits?

Below are a couple of slides from my presentation to the recent ACT conference. I talked about the successful (thus far) reforms and the failures. These graphs show a particular policy failure.

National, to their credit (and unlike Labour)  got to grips with welfare numbers and what drives them quite quickly. They acknowledged that adding subsequent children to an existing benefit was a big problem. A cabinet paper explored the situation and recommended a policy solution. This is the official advice now provided by Work and Income:

I compared data from 2006 to 2014 because the number of births in those two years was almost the same. As you can see, even more children were added after the reform. And last year, although fewer children were added, so too was the total number of births.

Work testing is ineffective in areas where there are no jobs. There are towns in NZ that are dying. They are not great places to raise children. But they are homes to beneficiaries - especially inter-generational - only because they provide more affordable living.

And taking a more cynical view, children continue to provide an opportunity to increase income by an additional $3,328 annually (subsequent child under 13 qualifies caregiver for $64 weekly) - not to mention the April benefit increase that is coming.

Meal ticket children must have the worst prospects of all NZ children.

Government should stop being held hostage by their parents, and by bureaucrats and politicians who believe that "suffer the little children to come unto me" means dishing out more cash for kids.

These parents should be supported via assistance-in-kind only. Ensure their children have adequate housing, food and power (more than what some have now) and that's it. It's do-able. It's called 'income management' and the technologies already exist and are applied to those on Youth and Young Parent Payments.

I don't think many people on welfare (many people full-stop) would relish the prospect of losing their cash income. But a radical disincentive to poorly-motivated procreation is overdue.

"VOTE FOR CHANGE" missed the bus

This morning I found a pamphlet sitting on the dining room table. It must have come up with other junk mail yesterday.

How badly organised was that bit of politicking?

All our ballot papers have been returned already.

Sir Bob was serious

Eric Crampton recounts a response from Sir Bob regarding Eric's assessment of the economic impact of the proposed Morgan statue:

Dear Dr Crampton,

Your report on the long overdue Morgan statue has been shown to me.  Plainly there has been a misunderstanding.  It most certainly was not a “tongue in cheek” proposal.  The widespread affection and admiration for Mr Morgan demands nothing less.

For example, indicative of the emotion stirred by this announcement, the chief Ombudsman Mr Peter Boshier, has generously offered himself as a ceremonial human sacrifice when the foundation stone is laid.  He won’t take no for an answer.

As for the difficulties you describe there’s a simple solution, namely ask Mr Morgan.  I gather that following imminent publication of his next two books (“Why Einstein’s Theory of Relativity Is Wrong” and “The Cure for Cancer”) written simultaneously, a pen in each hand, Mr Morgan will then be available to address your concerns.

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely,
Sir Robert Jones

The real cost of gangs

Earlier this week MSD released a report that found gang members had cost Work and Income, and Child Youth and Family $714 million in the 22 years between 1993 and 2014. I commented earlier that the annual cost of each gang member works out to $8,948 annually (3,627) - less than a superannuitant.

The remark was flippant. But I did mentally muse that raising the super qualifying age to 67 (in line with other countries we like to compare ourselves to) would save far more than $714 million over 22 years.

On a serious note - and the problem of gangs and their children is a very serious issue - the all-up cost to the tax payer is much higher than $32 million annually.

A few other major costs can be roughly (but totally unscientifically) calculated.

Not included in the MSD bill is the social security benefits of the mothers of gang member's children. Their welfare receipt will be greater than the father's. How much greater is unknown. But,

"7,075 dependent children were included in benefits with gang members for an average of 2.8 years."

Not very long because the children would generally be included in the benefits of their mothers.

I reckon doubling the cost would be conservative. There's another $64 million.

Then there's the cost to Corrections. According to SuperU (ex Families Commission):

"As of April 2013, gang members and affiliates comprised over 30 percent of inmates, with over 10 percent of the prison population belonging to the Mongrel Mob."

Thirty percent of prisoners  equates to around 2,400 @ $100,000 each which represents a yearly bill of $240 million.

Next is the cost to the Justice system. It costs $450 million to run the Ministry of Justice. May as well carve off 10% of that for gangs. A further $45 million.

And the police of course. Their annual budget is $1.4 billion. Let's be conservative again  and say 10% is spent on dealing with gangs so $140 million annually.

I guess ACC would have some involvement but wouldn't like to hazard a guess at a number.

So what have we got so far:

MSD  $96m
Corrections $240m
Justice $45m
Police $140m

Total $521 million annually.

Or $143,645 for each gang member on average.

Credible? Maybe I've over-stated costs - maybe not. What I haven't done is include the Health system costs from violence and ill-health; nor Customs involvement nor Housing NZ.

While the MSD numbers were somewhat underwhelming, and expressed as a 22 year sum, not very helpful, this further exercise has rammed it home to me that breaking the cycle of inter-generational gang membership and activity would have enormous benefits for everybody.

Flag Poll

Radio NZ is running a "highly unscientific" poll.

At 7:50am

Presidential candidate's plans for reducing poverty

I found this a fascinating read. Oh how I wish that we had such variation and delineation of ideas in this country.

Ron Haskins lays out the difference between 1/ Democrat and Republican voter attitudes to poverty and 2/ the various anti-poverty/ poverty (some will make poverty worse) policies espoused by individual candidates.

My pick is Cruz' flat tax though his social conservatism would preclude me voting for him.

Haskins concludes:

 The main difference: The Republicans would transfer authority over how the money is spent to parents and to states and localities. If the specific proposals being offered by Bush, Kasich, and Rubio on programs for the poor were adopted, it would represent a historic shift in responsibility and control from the federal government to the states and to parents. By contrast, Clinton and Sanders would greatly increase the amount of money controlled by the federal government, an increase mainly secured through tax increases on the rich.

Gang women no tender lillies either

MSD are going to conduct trials designed to intervene in gang life and improve their children's outcomes. It's got to be better than trying to stamp gangs out - colossal failure.

In among the copious amount of statistics about gangs, their welfare receipt, and contact with CYF released today, this caught my eye:

The alleged perpetrator of abuse or neglect of gang member’s children was more often recorded as the child’s mother than the gang member father. 

Well, well.  Though the perpetrator status is  'alleged' and not 'substantiated' . Maybe she is fitted up or takes the fall. Or maybe she just is the abuser.

This data also brought a wry smile to my face:

Ninety-two per cent (3,627) of the total 3,960 known gang members received main benefits from MSD at some stage between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 2014.

The 3,627 gang members spent on average 8.9 years on a main benefit (not necessarily continuously). Over half the time was receiving job seeker-related benefits and nearly a quarter of the time was receiving health or disability-related benefits

Eighteen per cent of all gang members had received a main benefit for a total of over 15 years, whereas 13 per cent received main benefits for two years or less, and eight per cent had not received main benefits at all.

Is there any other group in society that can boast this degree of welfare dependence? None I can think of. Even the blind have better rates of employment and self sufficiently (no disrespect intended).

And that's just the benefit the gang member receives directly. What about the mother of his children?

And those stupid lefties carry on with the assertion that welfare reduces crime ergo welfare reform will increase it.

Welfare is staple diet for gangs but certainly only a small part of their real incomes.

Update: Prompted by Eric Crampton's post I did some quick calculations and left the following comment:

The total cost amassed to MSD (includes CYF) was $714 million over 22 years by 3,960 gang members.

$8,195 annually. Cheaper than a superannuitant.

Minimum wage earners wealthier than their employers?

The following graph shows that a substantial portion of minimum wage workers live in relatively wealthy households, possibly wealthier households than their employers. Still the state demands employers pay more.

Source