Gareth Morgan's answer to the burgeoning welfare system, the Universal Basic Income (UBI) of $11,000 per year for every adult, leaves three acknowledged cohorts worse off - superannuitants, sole parents and the asset rich - probably a third of the adult population. Gareth addressed those but ignored a fourth group - 144,000 sickness and invalid beneficiaries many of whom are receiving more than $211.50 per week. Over half receive an accommodation supplement and many receive disability allowances. The targeted assistance Morgan wants to dispense with helps these people to a much greater extent than the UBI would.
Treasury modelled a Guaranteed Minimum Income for the Welfare Working Group (at the group's request after Gareth and Sue Bradford both proposed some form of universal basic income at its initial conference). It pointed out that some of the neediest welfare recipients would be worse off even at a level of $15,600 per annum. As well Treasury noted the negative effect these schemes would have on productivity, savings and investment, none of which can be over-emphasised in my opinion.
Similar experiments have been tried before, notably negative income tax in the US, and did not have beneficial outcomes. Which is hardly surprising. Paying all adults - Treasury modelled from 16 years up - with or without productive return, is surely more of what has unhinged the present system which provides a viable alternative to work but indulges family breakdown and self-destructive behaviour. Morgan is extolling more of the state-legislated wealth redistribution which has us in the mess he now wants to 'fix'.
Surely the point is that individuals used to rely far more heavily on each other. They formed stable and committed families that provided for raising children, caring for the elderly, and supporting each other in times of adversity. Incidentally, very much the Asian way of providing welfare. For three decades after the 1938 social security net was created people relied on it sparingly and treated the system and, by inference, each other with respect. That was the overriding value that has weakened and needs to be restored.
People are born to make their way in life through endeavour and forming positive partnerships. Not to wait till they reach 16 and have the state chuck a couple of hundred bucks their way unconditionally for the duration. Morgan fails to acknowledge the enormous personal disincentive effect such a practice would incur.
For instance, drug and alcohol abuse are increasing problems in society. Young people could pool resources and lead lives that require none of the discipline associated with working for a living. All of the social fall-out and intergenerational dysfunction would continue.
Rather than re-invent 'welfarism' - broadly speaking, any subsidy from the state - New Zealand needs to reduce it. That begins with the clear, unequivocal message that welfare is a strictly temporary hand-up for any person capable of working and supporting themselves. As well, the eligibility age for Super must be lifted to match lengthening life expectancies. That will enable lower taxation - not greater as required by the UBI - and will bring investment, entrepreneurship and jobs to a country that is now blessed with its geographic position in relation to the rapidly economically transforming world.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
I was wrong about ACT
It was my prediction that the ACT party's polling would climb under Don Brashs' leadership. I was wrong. But I am so often in a such a small minority intellectually it is no wonder I cannot understand how other people think.
However, I made my prediction before knowing John Banks was going to stand in Epsom. That now makes my vote highly marginal and perhaps other past ACT voters are feeling the same. Catherine Isaac might neutralise the 'Banks effect' for me but the problem remains - that ACT has no clear political philosophy.
Apparently it is now the farmer's party. It also looks very euro centric at times. What is ACT 2? If there are members in there still holding out to give the party a clear classical liberal direction I admire their tenacity.
Perhaps past voters are just fed up with the in-party shannanegins, for want of a better word. Ongoing instability does not engender confidence. Or trust.
Perhaps polling will improve markedly on the day that counts. But because that has happened in the past is no guarantee it'll happen again. And do I even care?
(Yes I do sound like Eyeore today.)
Monday, August 29, 2011
Child ill-being: the recession isn't the problem
You will have read or heard about the updated Children's Social Health Monitor released today.
It examines the effect of the recession on things like unemployment, benefit dependence, deprivation, ill-health and hospital admissions.
But the following graphs highlight that dependence on the DPB isn't enormously effected by the unemployment rate. With or without a recession, far too many children rely on the DPB and subsequently are 'poor'.
The next graphs, also extracted from today's report, highlight that child hospital admission rates for assault, neglect or maltreatment are ten times higher in the poorest decile compared to the wealthiest (which coincides exactly with the teenage birth rate.)
Following that is the ethnic breakdown.
How many times have you heard PC, self-deceiving types saying that abuse happens across all of society? I suppose technically that is true but it is intended to detract attention from where most of it happens.
It examines the effect of the recession on things like unemployment, benefit dependence, deprivation, ill-health and hospital admissions.
But the following graphs highlight that dependence on the DPB isn't enormously effected by the unemployment rate. With or without a recession, far too many children rely on the DPB and subsequently are 'poor'.
The next graphs, also extracted from today's report, highlight that child hospital admission rates for assault, neglect or maltreatment are ten times higher in the poorest decile compared to the wealthiest (which coincides exactly with the teenage birth rate.)
Following that is the ethnic breakdown.
How many times have you heard PC, self-deceiving types saying that abuse happens across all of society? I suppose technically that is true but it is intended to detract attention from where most of it happens.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Meerkat
This year I have been giving pastel lessons which involve the student bringing a subject they want to capture. I provide the materials and we begin with the student following the steps I would take if the subject was a commission. At some point I abandon my demonstration piece and devote my full attention to their work. One talented lady turned up with a Meerkat (photo of at least) and was thrilled with her final painting.
Last week, with nothing else to work on I got out the sketch I had begun and finished it off.
Last week, with nothing else to work on I got out the sketch I had begun and finished it off.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Friday: First, food for thought and then just friggin' funny
From the Acton Institute:
Said about 'flash mobbing' in the US. Could have been about the UK riots. It's a selective quote on my part because I don't hold with other views expressed by the Acton people. Nevertheless, as it stands, it makes crystal clear sense.
Then (unrelated) Kiwiblog features some recent Bob Jones correspondence. I recall reading a book titled something like Bob Jones Letters which was full of this sort of highly articulate piss-taking. Love it.
(Tried linking to the Acton Institute repeatedly but kept getting total disarrangement of post.)
In a society that does not value private property and fosters a spirit of envy and class warfare through wealth redistribution, why should we be surprised that young people don’t value someone else’s property?
Said about 'flash mobbing' in the US. Could have been about the UK riots. It's a selective quote on my part because I don't hold with other views expressed by the Acton people. Nevertheless, as it stands, it makes crystal clear sense.
Then (unrelated) Kiwiblog features some recent Bob Jones correspondence. I recall reading a book titled something like Bob Jones Letters which was full of this sort of highly articulate piss-taking. Love it.
(Tried linking to the Acton Institute repeatedly but kept getting total disarrangement of post.)
Message for Paula Bennett
I don't want to repeatedly beat up on Paula Bennett and the job she is doing but her response to Coroner Wallace Bain's call for spot checks on all children under five is incredibly ill-considered and should have been a firm 'no'.
"As a country, we have to decide what we are prepared to give up to stop other children experiencing the abuse baby Nia did."
So those of us who aren't prepared to put up with state authorities sticking their noses into our homes to examine our child-raising abilities (remember the sort of standards being set for what constitutes abuse these days), we are heels. We are now the problem.
Yesterday I had to take both of my children to the doctors. There was a couple with a sick baby, obviously anxious and obviously adoring of their child. This is how most parents are. They love their children desperately. The state has no business monitoring their care of their children. The idea is quite repulsive.
So no Ms Bennett. I will defend the right of good parents to be left alone. Harassing them will do nothing.
The state has a role to play in preventing real harm to children and it is eminently possible to identify where those children are.
Stop prevaricating and buck-passing. You are the Minister.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Checks on sole parents have happened before
The Coroner in the Nia Glassie case is one Wallace Bain. Apparently Dr Bain wants spot checks on all children and...
Dr Bain wants a return to the past.
But decades later:
And didn't that create a much kinder world? One where children are routinely loved and cared for?
Unfortunately not.
Dr Bain is also calling for all solo parents on a benefit to be monitored and overseen to ensure the safety of children in their care.
Dr Bain wants a return to the past.
The Child Welfare Act 1925 introduced mandatory inquiries into the living circumstances of all children born outside marriage.
But decades later:
.... the Status of Children Act 1969, [which] ended discrimination between children born within and outside registered marriage and removed the term "illegitimate" from the statute books. This legislation reflected a desire to reduce some of the stigma associated with ex-nuptial birth that New Zealand inherited from English family law and brought the judicial system into line with the much more liberal concepts of Māori (Cameron 1967, 1969, Quin and O'Neill 1984).
And didn't that create a much kinder world? One where children are routinely loved and cared for?
Unfortunately not.
What's in a name?
The Domestic Purposes Benefit has been named as such since 1968. 43 years ago National instituted the DPB Emergency Benefit. How much life has changed since then. For instance women now make up half of the workforce and tertiary education rolls.
The benefit itself is dated and unsuited to the times, and so is the name. The reason I was thinking along these lines was looking at what various US states call their equivalent DPB. Many simply use the words 'temporary' and 'transitional' and 'work' but here are a few of the more imaginary examples:
Arizona EMPOWER (Employing and Moving People Off Welfare and Encouraging Responsibility)
Montana FAIM (Families Achieving Independence in Montana)
North Dakota TEEM (Training, Employment, Education Management)
Oregon JOBS (Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program)
Virginia VIEW (Virginia Initiative for Employment, Not Welfare)
Wyoming POWER (Personal Opportunities With Employment Responsibility)
You can view the lot here.
The essential difference is the expectation that the name creates. The federal and state funds that go into these programmes only pay out a small percentage in cash assistance. The rest goes into things like childcare, training etc.
I would judge the success of the US reforms primarily on whether they break the inter-generational cycle of dependence. Changing the parent's expectations will change their children's. Poor and working is better than poor and on welfare. Aspirational is better than apathetic.
While many commentators (somewhat smugly) predict the economic decline of the US I think they have been tackling their social problems with real vigour and discipline. Eventually they will see a pay-off. NZ, frankly, is well behind.
The benefit itself is dated and unsuited to the times, and so is the name. The reason I was thinking along these lines was looking at what various US states call their equivalent DPB. Many simply use the words 'temporary' and 'transitional' and 'work' but here are a few of the more imaginary examples:
Arizona EMPOWER (Employing and Moving People Off Welfare and Encouraging Responsibility)
Montana FAIM (Families Achieving Independence in Montana)
North Dakota TEEM (Training, Employment, Education Management)
Oregon JOBS (Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program)
Virginia VIEW (Virginia Initiative for Employment, Not Welfare)
Wyoming POWER (Personal Opportunities With Employment Responsibility)
You can view the lot here.
The essential difference is the expectation that the name creates. The federal and state funds that go into these programmes only pay out a small percentage in cash assistance. The rest goes into things like childcare, training etc.
I would judge the success of the US reforms primarily on whether they break the inter-generational cycle of dependence. Changing the parent's expectations will change their children's. Poor and working is better than poor and on welfare. Aspirational is better than apathetic.
While many commentators (somewhat smugly) predict the economic decline of the US I think they have been tackling their social problems with real vigour and discipline. Eventually they will see a pay-off. NZ, frankly, is well behind.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Two working parents = problem children?
The front page of the Dominion Post features a story about the increasing bad behaviour of 5 and 6 year-olds. One of the reasons put up is:
This return to the 'latch key' children idea is bothering me.
It was one of the reasons the DPB was introduced in the first place. To allow single parents to stay at home with their children. That proved no panacea.
But I am not convinced that two working parents is really the crux of the problem. Parents who work are taking financial responsibility for their kids. It follows they are more likely to be taking responsibility for them, and each other, in other ways as well.
Holding down more than one job and abusing drugs and alcohol isn't very easy to do, especially with more and more drug-testing in the workplace.
I am more inclined to accept that the worst children are coming from dysfunctional family relying on a mix of welfare, and income from crime or the black market; these families began with a birth to a young mother who has probably been abused in her lifetime, and grow through a succession of partners. Not exclusively but more likely.
There are families with mothers, for example, working night shifts where older siblings are left to supervise the younger and it is true that they get baby-sat by X Boxes and movies and left to play into the night.
A working one or two parent family may neglect a child through sheer lack of time but I would love to see some evidence that the problem is about too much work and not about too much welfare.
There is also the obvious point that needs making. Two parents working by necessity are paying the taxes that support the 113,000 people on the DPB. And the only research available on the subject shows that CYF Care and Protection notifications are nearly 4 times more likely to occur to a child in a DPB dependent home.
Social problems contributed, with both parents in many families having one or more jobs.
This return to the 'latch key' children idea is bothering me.
It was one of the reasons the DPB was introduced in the first place. To allow single parents to stay at home with their children. That proved no panacea.
But I am not convinced that two working parents is really the crux of the problem. Parents who work are taking financial responsibility for their kids. It follows they are more likely to be taking responsibility for them, and each other, in other ways as well.
One child psychologist says poor parenting is part of the problem, and exposure to drugs or alcohol in the womb is having a terrible impact of some children.....There was a subset of children who had more challenging behaviour than previously seen. "Part of it could be exposure to drugs and alcohol in utero – we really under-diagnose that in New Zealand. We know we have children who have been exposed to P in utero that are in schools now ... but it's not going to be the only factor."
Holding down more than one job and abusing drugs and alcohol isn't very easy to do, especially with more and more drug-testing in the workplace.
I am more inclined to accept that the worst children are coming from dysfunctional family relying on a mix of welfare, and income from crime or the black market; these families began with a birth to a young mother who has probably been abused in her lifetime, and grow through a succession of partners. Not exclusively but more likely.
There are families with mothers, for example, working night shifts where older siblings are left to supervise the younger and it is true that they get baby-sat by X Boxes and movies and left to play into the night.
A working one or two parent family may neglect a child through sheer lack of time but I would love to see some evidence that the problem is about too much work and not about too much welfare.
There is also the obvious point that needs making. Two parents working by necessity are paying the taxes that support the 113,000 people on the DPB. And the only research available on the subject shows that CYF Care and Protection notifications are nearly 4 times more likely to occur to a child in a DPB dependent home.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Billy T
Billy T James didn't know me from a bar of soap. And this photo is only the result of an uncharacteristic action on my part. Asking someone who did know him slightly to take a photo of us together, with his permission. The occasion was backstage at a Dolly Parton and Kenny Rogers concert in 1987, Auckland. I was a sales rep for RCA at the time and as such, met lots of famous people. Well, a few. But I never fawned on them or tried to get memento type shots. I had too much respect for their privacy and my dignity. But Billy was an exception. I selfishly wanted my own little piece.
But lots of people wanted a bigger piece.
I was going to write a review of Billy T: Te Movie after seeing it today. But it feels too close. The times, the gorgeousness of his humour, the loss. I will recommend it but can't guarantee you will come away feeling uplifted. I didn't. I just missed him all over again.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
'Compassion' - the Left's buzzword for election campaign
Have you noticed the word 'compassion', or derivatives of it, cropping up increasingly of late?
It's a word that the left loves. But it needs a new definition. Spending other people's money to make oneself feel righteous, perhaps; The state supposedly fixing problems but actually making them worse, perhaps.
The Greens have launched an entire project entitled "A compassionate economy".
By definition if you aren't a Green you aren't compassionate. You are hardhearted, cruel, uncaring.
But do you notice that the Green's form of compassion entails even greater use of force against individuals? Is it compassionate to force people to take responsibility for problems not of their own making? Is it compassionate to prevent people from freely pursuing life, liberty and happiness because others don't understand or care about those things?
Someone called Deborah Russell (a taxation lecturer from Massey) recently wrote a column in the Dominion Post calling for the welfare state to be compassionate. She said she was happy to pay her tax for it to be so.
She said specifically that the welfare system should err on the side of compassion. Rules for eligibility should not be toughened up as recommended by the Welfare Working Group.
NZ has been erring on the side of compassion since the 1972 Royal Commission on Social Policy urged as much. Then around 8,000 sole parents were receiving an emergency benefit and it was considered caring and inclusive to create a statutory benefit that guaranteed welfare to any single parent regardless of the reason for their single parenthood.
Now there are 113,000 people receiving that benefit, along with nearly twice as many children who are often characterised as living in poverty and without the input of fathers.
If that is the result of 'compassion' then perhaps it is time for a little less. The welfare system is in dire need of reform; not the continued application of thoughtless emoting.
It's a word that the left loves. But it needs a new definition. Spending other people's money to make oneself feel righteous, perhaps; The state supposedly fixing problems but actually making them worse, perhaps.
The Greens have launched an entire project entitled "A compassionate economy".
By definition if you aren't a Green you aren't compassionate. You are hardhearted, cruel, uncaring.
But do you notice that the Green's form of compassion entails even greater use of force against individuals? Is it compassionate to force people to take responsibility for problems not of their own making? Is it compassionate to prevent people from freely pursuing life, liberty and happiness because others don't understand or care about those things?
Someone called Deborah Russell (a taxation lecturer from Massey) recently wrote a column in the Dominion Post calling for the welfare state to be compassionate. She said she was happy to pay her tax for it to be so.
She said specifically that the welfare system should err on the side of compassion. Rules for eligibility should not be toughened up as recommended by the Welfare Working Group.
NZ has been erring on the side of compassion since the 1972 Royal Commission on Social Policy urged as much. Then around 8,000 sole parents were receiving an emergency benefit and it was considered caring and inclusive to create a statutory benefit that guaranteed welfare to any single parent regardless of the reason for their single parenthood.
Now there are 113,000 people receiving that benefit, along with nearly twice as many children who are often characterised as living in poverty and without the input of fathers.
If that is the result of 'compassion' then perhaps it is time for a little less. The welfare system is in dire need of reform; not the continued application of thoughtless emoting.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Bennett doing a bad job on latest policy
Paula Bennett is being too vague with the latest welfare reform policy. That became more painful to witness yesterday as Labour tried to tease out the details. OK. The policy is actually part of National's election manifesto; not an announcement of legislative change that will occur before November. But the way it is rolling out it really smacks of finger in the wind. Starting tough but softening under pressure. Perhaps the cash allowance will be more generous? Perhaps the range of payment card licencees will be quite broad?
Notwithstanding that I want to see benefits made temporary for most, short of that, income management is not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly not "sinister", how Bradford's outfit described it.
In Australia the policy began in some Aboriginal communities where children were being neglected and women were frequently the subject of 'economic violence' - their benefit cash was stolen from them. The policy was intended to protect women and children by ensuring they got the necessaries taken care of through a BasicsCard. Usually 50 percent (but up to 70 percent) of the benefit was loaded onto a card and could only be used for essentials.
Then the government widened the policy to include young people who had been on welfare more than 13 of the past 26 weeks; families referred by child protection services; others that Centrelink defined as 'vulnerable'; and those who voluntarily chose it.
The reasons for applying the policy to certain groups or individuals are clear. It would be easy enough to implement the same here. And to provide a clear rationale.
It is impossible to stop people spending cash on what they want to but it is possible (with loopholes) to ensure that the basics are more likely to be attended to. Especially important when children are involved.
But the way the policy has been mooted - applying only to 16 and 17 year-olds plus 18 year-old single parents - it is itself very vulnerable to criticism. And ensuing complication. Especially now a letter expressing Bennett's own distaste for income management has emerged.
The Minister needs to be far more definitive about what National wants to do and why.
(This is the gist of comments I made to NewstalkZB when they rang for an opinion. The soundbite they are running doesn't reflect my main, final point. That may come out in a later bulletin.)
Notwithstanding that I want to see benefits made temporary for most, short of that, income management is not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly not "sinister", how Bradford's outfit described it.
In Australia the policy began in some Aboriginal communities where children were being neglected and women were frequently the subject of 'economic violence' - their benefit cash was stolen from them. The policy was intended to protect women and children by ensuring they got the necessaries taken care of through a BasicsCard. Usually 50 percent (but up to 70 percent) of the benefit was loaded onto a card and could only be used for essentials.
Then the government widened the policy to include young people who had been on welfare more than 13 of the past 26 weeks; families referred by child protection services; others that Centrelink defined as 'vulnerable'; and those who voluntarily chose it.
The reasons for applying the policy to certain groups or individuals are clear. It would be easy enough to implement the same here. And to provide a clear rationale.
It is impossible to stop people spending cash on what they want to but it is possible (with loopholes) to ensure that the basics are more likely to be attended to. Especially important when children are involved.
But the way the policy has been mooted - applying only to 16 and 17 year-olds plus 18 year-old single parents - it is itself very vulnerable to criticism. And ensuing complication. Especially now a letter expressing Bennett's own distaste for income management has emerged.
The Minister needs to be far more definitive about what National wants to do and why.
(This is the gist of comments I made to NewstalkZB when they rang for an opinion. The soundbite they are running doesn't reflect my main, final point. That may come out in a later bulletin.)
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Gordon Campbell: Deliberately misleading the public?
In last week's Hutt News Gordon Campbell, doyen of the left, wrote the following article (not on-line unfortunately):
My attention was immediately caught by the quote in the fourth paragraph. It is reasonably well-known that NZ's elderly are relatively well-off. So the quote he used surprised me and warranted further investigation. Here is what I found:
My attention was immediately caught by the quote in the fourth paragraph. It is reasonably well-known that NZ's elderly are relatively well-off. So the quote he used surprised me and warranted further investigation. Here is what I found:
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Outside my window
We are about 20 metres above sea level. Just up from the beach. Beautiful. And will be until the power goes out. Like it did last night. Twice. For long periods. I bought two extra hot water bottles today because I can heat water from the gas stove top. But that's it. Another night of chess by torchlight I am not looking forward to. But our trials, while very unusual, are minimal compared to others.
Option for reforming welfare?
Drove through steadily falling snow into Wellington yesterday to pre-record a Close Up interview. It was about National's welfare reforms for youth. Sitting next to me was Gareth Morgan who was against the reform. I was for but only as a first step. Gareth was also launching his new book about the benefit system yesterday and was taking the opportunity to push his Negative Income Tax or Guaranteed Minimum Income scheme - not sure what label he is using. It involves scrapping all benefits in favour of everyone getting a yearly income from the state.
I am against these schemes. They naturally grate with me because require even greater forced wealth redistribution. They require very high taxation (Gareth wants to use tax on capital gain). They disincentivise however in more ways than one. Labour productivity, savings, investment. And some of the worst off, lifetime invalids with high health costs reliant on the state, are ...even worse off. Strangely some of the Libz want these schemes and so does well-known American writer and libertarian, Charles Murray.
Sue Bradford is also all for a GMI. Her and Gareth shared a platform at the initial WWG conference and agreed this idea as a way to solve many of the welfare problems. Consequently the WWG asked Treasury to model a GMI which gave every New Zealander 16 and over $300 a week. Here's their response.
In the event the weather news overtook other items and the producer rang to tell me they had run out of time to use it but want me back on another day.
I am against these schemes. They naturally grate with me because require even greater forced wealth redistribution. They require very high taxation (Gareth wants to use tax on capital gain). They disincentivise however in more ways than one. Labour productivity, savings, investment. And some of the worst off, lifetime invalids with high health costs reliant on the state, are ...even worse off. Strangely some of the Libz want these schemes and so does well-known American writer and libertarian, Charles Murray.
Sue Bradford is also all for a GMI. Her and Gareth shared a platform at the initial WWG conference and agreed this idea as a way to solve many of the welfare problems. Consequently the WWG asked Treasury to model a GMI which gave every New Zealander 16 and over $300 a week. Here's their response.
In the event the weather news overtook other items and the producer rang to tell me they had run out of time to use it but want me back on another day.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Claudette Hauiti. More interesting than the welfare speech.
Here's an interesting new candidate for National, Claudette Hauiti. I like her. And I don't think she is just mouthing platitudes when she talks about smaller government, less bureaucracy, more self-responsibility, and greater reward for hard work. But you would have to watch the video to get a sense of that for yourself.
National's welfare reform proposals don't go far enough
NATIONAL'S WELFARE REFORM PROPOSALS DON'T GO FAR ENOUGH
Sunday, August 14, 2011
The welfare reform proposals that relate to young people on benefits announced today don't go far enough, welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said today.
"Allowing the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social Development to share information about school leavers going on welfare should never have been stopped in the first place. "
"Attaching obligations and money management regimes to benefits received by 16 and 17 year-olds, and 18 year-old sole parents, is an improvement on the status quo. However, many single parents enter the benefit system older than 18 still without the maturity or wherewithal to raise a child. Which begs the question, why draw an arbitrary line at 18?"
"The new message being sent is, if you go on the DPB at 19 you won't get hassled. "
"Today's announcement is a good start but doesn't go nearly far enough. Not only is it vital that existing teen parents are required and supported to continue their own education or training, but that more potential sole parents are discouraged from choosing or defaulting to the benefit lifestyle."
"Strict time limits across all ages would act as such a deterrent."
"If the government is serious about reducing New Zealand's very high teenage birthrate and the associated deprivation, it should promise an end to 16-17 year-old eligibility, and time limits - with some exemptions - extended to all others."
Sunday, August 14, 2011
The welfare reform proposals that relate to young people on benefits announced today don't go far enough, welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said today.
"Allowing the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social Development to share information about school leavers going on welfare should never have been stopped in the first place. "
"Attaching obligations and money management regimes to benefits received by 16 and 17 year-olds, and 18 year-old sole parents, is an improvement on the status quo. However, many single parents enter the benefit system older than 18 still without the maturity or wherewithal to raise a child. Which begs the question, why draw an arbitrary line at 18?"
"The new message being sent is, if you go on the DPB at 19 you won't get hassled. "
"Today's announcement is a good start but doesn't go nearly far enough. Not only is it vital that existing teen parents are required and supported to continue their own education or training, but that more potential sole parents are discouraged from choosing or defaulting to the benefit lifestyle."
"Strict time limits across all ages would act as such a deterrent."
"If the government is serious about reducing New Zealand's very high teenage birthrate and the associated deprivation, it should promise an end to 16-17 year-old eligibility, and time limits - with some exemptions - extended to all others."
Child support debt is a putting- the- cart- before- the- horse problem
Deborah Coddington is angry about fathers who renege on their child support payments.
Not all liable parents are "exes". They were sperm donors. There was no "split-up". They don't pay child support because they are in prison, the mother hasn't named them as the father, they have more children and child support liabilities than a benefit can support. Think of the many who don't pay court fines. Some have been used to supply a meal ticket to the mother. That action might be described as child abuse on Deborah's "bell curve" too.
Yesterday I was speaking at the Libertarianz conference and we had a discussion along similar lines. That fathers should face up to their financial responsibilities. Bear in mind that even when they meet child support requirements most only pay a fraction of the DPB cost to the taxpayer.
I stated my position back in 2009. It is unchanged;
There are multitudes of reasons why exes refuse to pay, or can't pay, child support. Maybe they're broke. Some scum have income hidden in trusts. Often they just want to punish the other, following a bitter custody battle, so they think nothing of using their children as weapons.
I call that child abuse, on the same bell curve as the man who threw his kids off a Melbourne bridge.
There are many reasons, but no excuses. You split up, you take financial responsibility for your family. You don't blame everyone else and make the country pay.
Not all liable parents are "exes". They were sperm donors. There was no "split-up". They don't pay child support because they are in prison, the mother hasn't named them as the father, they have more children and child support liabilities than a benefit can support. Think of the many who don't pay court fines. Some have been used to supply a meal ticket to the mother. That action might be described as child abuse on Deborah's "bell curve" too.
Yesterday I was speaking at the Libertarianz conference and we had a discussion along similar lines. That fathers should face up to their financial responsibilities. Bear in mind that even when they meet child support requirements most only pay a fraction of the DPB cost to the taxpayer.
I stated my position back in 2009. It is unchanged;
Mitchell said the traditional political response is to demand fathers face up to their financial responsibilities. "However, the child support problem is only a spin-off from the DPB system. If there was no DPB, which acts as an incentive to single parenthood, there would be nowhere near the current number of liable parents - 130,762. The state has effectively replaced many fathers who are nevertheless expected to pay the bills for children they often have no role in raising. "
"As a general rule fathers should take responsibility for their children but the state has to stop skewing the morality of this by putting up cash rewards to prospective single mothers."
"Before the DPB it was difficult for mothers to chase maintenance through the court system and fathers ran the risk of conviction and imprisonment for reneging on a court order. But that was forty years ago. Today, avoiding becoming pregnant and giving birth is much simpler. And in respect of relationship breakdowns, women, who now make up half of the workforce, are much better equipped to handle being a breadwinner and men are much better equipped for sharing parenting."
"Until the DPB is reformed to suit the times, the taxpayer will continue to foot the lion's share of its cost."
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Men failing
A quick cut and paste from NCPA this morning. Written about the US but entirely relevant to the NZ situation.
As Girls Excel, What Happens to Boys?
Women today are entering adulthood with more education, more achievements, more property and, arguably, more money and ambition than their male counterparts. This is a first in human history, and its implications for both sexes are far from simple, says Kay Hymowitz, the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
You can see the strongest evidence that boys and young men are falling behind in high school and college classrooms.
Boys have lower grade point averages and lower grades in almost every subject, including math, despite their higher standardized testing scores, and they are 58 percent of high school dropouts.
In the mid-1970s about 28 percent of men had college degrees; since then, that number has barely budged.
Meanwhile, the percentage of women with a college degree increased from 18.6 to 34.2 percent and women now earn 57 percent of college degrees.
Male earnings have come to reflect their educational disadvantage -- childless twentysomething men now earn 8 percent less than their female counterparts in 147 out of 150 of American cities.
So what explains this stunning shift between the sexes? The deepest roots of women's current success lie in economic and technological change.
In the early decades of the 20th century, a "household revolution" dramatically eased the domestic burdens primarily borne by women.
Women's release from household drudgery coincided with the emergence of the postindustrial labor market, meaning a growing number of service and knowledge-based jobs -- all areas where women have excelled.
The second and related theory about why men are falling behind is that today's labor market prizes female strengths more than male strengths.
Hymowitz adds a third, more existential explanation, for the male problem: The economic independence of women and the collapse of marriage norms have deprived men of the primary social role that incentivized their achievement. What this means is that boys today are growing up in a culture that, unlike any before in civilization, is agnostic about their future familial responsibilities.
Aside from school reforms that could help keep boys more engaged, the new gender gap has no obvious solutions. The profound economic changes that have led to female success and male stagnation have also transformed our culture and its expectations for men.
Source: Kay Hymowitz, "What's Happening to Men?" Cato Unbound, August 8, 2011.
For text:
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/08/08/kay-hymowitz/whats-happening-to-men/
I disagree that there are no obvious solutions. Mine would revolve around getting the state out of areas it shouldn't be. Reforming or discarding social policies that have interfered with the formation and endurance of relationships for instance. Some policies might have been justified as corrective (although foreseeing the unwanted consequences could also have acted as a brake) but they have now outlived their usefulness.
As Girls Excel, What Happens to Boys?
Women today are entering adulthood with more education, more achievements, more property and, arguably, more money and ambition than their male counterparts. This is a first in human history, and its implications for both sexes are far from simple, says Kay Hymowitz, the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
You can see the strongest evidence that boys and young men are falling behind in high school and college classrooms.
Boys have lower grade point averages and lower grades in almost every subject, including math, despite their higher standardized testing scores, and they are 58 percent of high school dropouts.
In the mid-1970s about 28 percent of men had college degrees; since then, that number has barely budged.
Meanwhile, the percentage of women with a college degree increased from 18.6 to 34.2 percent and women now earn 57 percent of college degrees.
Male earnings have come to reflect their educational disadvantage -- childless twentysomething men now earn 8 percent less than their female counterparts in 147 out of 150 of American cities.
So what explains this stunning shift between the sexes? The deepest roots of women's current success lie in economic and technological change.
In the early decades of the 20th century, a "household revolution" dramatically eased the domestic burdens primarily borne by women.
Women's release from household drudgery coincided with the emergence of the postindustrial labor market, meaning a growing number of service and knowledge-based jobs -- all areas where women have excelled.
The second and related theory about why men are falling behind is that today's labor market prizes female strengths more than male strengths.
Hymowitz adds a third, more existential explanation, for the male problem: The economic independence of women and the collapse of marriage norms have deprived men of the primary social role that incentivized their achievement. What this means is that boys today are growing up in a culture that, unlike any before in civilization, is agnostic about their future familial responsibilities.
Aside from school reforms that could help keep boys more engaged, the new gender gap has no obvious solutions. The profound economic changes that have led to female success and male stagnation have also transformed our culture and its expectations for men.
Source: Kay Hymowitz, "What's Happening to Men?" Cato Unbound, August 8, 2011.
For text:
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/08/08/kay-hymowitz/whats-happening-to-men/
I disagree that there are no obvious solutions. Mine would revolve around getting the state out of areas it shouldn't be. Reforming or discarding social policies that have interfered with the formation and endurance of relationships for instance. Some policies might have been justified as corrective (although foreseeing the unwanted consequences could also have acted as a brake) but they have now outlived their usefulness.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
"NZ Classical Liberal"
Here's a new blog that looks promising. Added to my blogroll for your convenience.
Separatism in the City
Another example of different laws. But this one may not work to Maori advantage.
It'll be interesting to watch the response from Maori politicians. No doubt this form of 'privilege' - having their own, additional security force - will be labelled as discrimination. That's what the bar owners appear to see it as. In practice the whole idea looks utterly fraught.
"Likely to become so." That is a licence to turf anyone drinking.
And just how do Maori wardens go about identifying Maori? Isn't ethnicity now about self-identification? The mind boggles.
Meantime overseas visitors will be given the impression that NZ has a problem with Maori drinking similar to that seen with Aboriginal drinking in some Australian cities. Great image to carry away with them.
Wellington bar owners say drunk Maori will be specifically targeted during the World Cup, by a 50-year-old law that has been pulled from the archives by police and the city council. The law allows Maori wardens to enter bars and remove drunk or violent Maori.
It'll be interesting to watch the response from Maori politicians. No doubt this form of 'privilege' - having their own, additional security force - will be labelled as discrimination. That's what the bar owners appear to see it as. In practice the whole idea looks utterly fraught.
The law means Maori wardens can stop the bar selling liquor to any Maori who appears to be drunk, violent, quarrelsome or disorderly or likely to become so.
"Likely to become so." That is a licence to turf anyone drinking.
And just how do Maori wardens go about identifying Maori? Isn't ethnicity now about self-identification? The mind boggles.
Meantime overseas visitors will be given the impression that NZ has a problem with Maori drinking similar to that seen with Aboriginal drinking in some Australian cities. Great image to carry away with them.
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
God-awful excuses for UK rioting
(I lived and worked in London for four years and it is the only other place in the world I have ever regarded as home or would want to make my home again, entirely because of the people who live there.)
Right on cue the socialists start to recount the reasons why young men in London, Birmingham and Liverpool are rioting. But before we read the excuses let's remember what these rioters are doing. Destroying private property and invading private homes. Thieving from and terrorising private individuals.
This isn't some sort of intellectual response to material deprivation directed at the state. It may be a subconscious, base response to emotional deprivation. That is the most generous response I can summon.
It certainly jars with the idea that the welfare state would prevent such malcontent.
Hell, these guys don't even have the balls to chance their arms at real crime with real risk. No. They create a contrived circumstance whereby they can loot and assault without consequence. Cowards. Creeps. And there is another word beginning with 'c' I have never uttered in my life. I hope those who are detained feel the full contempt of the already incarcerated in due course.
Right on cue the socialists start to recount the reasons why young men in London, Birmingham and Liverpool are rioting. But before we read the excuses let's remember what these rioters are doing. Destroying private property and invading private homes. Thieving from and terrorising private individuals.
This isn't some sort of intellectual response to material deprivation directed at the state. It may be a subconscious, base response to emotional deprivation. That is the most generous response I can summon.
It certainly jars with the idea that the welfare state would prevent such malcontent.
Hell, these guys don't even have the balls to chance their arms at real crime with real risk. No. They create a contrived circumstance whereby they can loot and assault without consequence. Cowards. Creeps. And there is another word beginning with 'c' I have never uttered in my life. I hope those who are detained feel the full contempt of the already incarcerated in due course.
In recent months the government has tripled the cost of university tuition and abolished the Education Maintenance Allowance, paid to some 640,000 16-18 year olds to help them continue in higher education.
Areas like Tottenham, amongst the most deprived in the country, have been particularly hard hit. Unemployment officially stands at 8.8 percent, but will be much higher amongst young people. Claims for Jobseeker’s Allowance have risen by 10 percent in the last year, while Haringey Council has cut £41 million from its budget, reducing its youth services by 75 percent.
This is the social reality that underlies the London disturbances. It is replicated in working class areas across the country. It is the reason Cooper anticipates “repeated” disorder in the coming months.
Bad haircut
A Northampton garage owner was apparently sick and tired of thugs breaking into his garage shop to steal tools, etc. So he came up with an idea. He put the word out that he had a new Mexican Lion that would attack anyone that tried to break in or climb his fence.
Would-be thieves saw the "Lion" from a distance and fled the scene.
Would-be thieves saw the "Lion" from a distance and fled the scene.
Monday, August 08, 2011
What's behind Paula Bennett's 'good news'?
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett says Future Focus changes implemented last September have saved taxpayers more than $6 million.
“The changes implemented last September as a pre-cursor to major reforms introduced clear obligations and greater fairness to the benefits system.”
Future Focus changes include requiring:
• Unemployment Beneficiaries to reapply if they remain on the benefit after a year and prove their eligibility to continue receiving assistance.
• DPB recipients with children over six to look for part-time work.
“This common sense approach has seen 7,400 people go off Unemployment Benefits and taxpayers have saved more than $6 million,” says Ms Bennett.
About half of the 7,400 didn’t complete the process, more than 2,000 were in work and 1,400 had left the country, were studying or just failed the work test.
“This simple policy change alone is expected to save a further $3.5 million by October,” says Ms Bennett.
Since September last year, more than 10,800 people have gone off the DPB into work.
“The number of people who’ve found jobs and gone off the DPB since last year’s welfare changes has gone up by 20 percent, that’s significant”
Prior to Future Focus changes there were 13,700 people on DPB doing some part time work and now there are 15,300.
ENDS
DPB statistics
Sept 2010 112,765
June 2011 113,429
Doesn't matter how many go off when more come on.
And those going off most likely represent short-termers best capable of gaining employment while those coming on most likely represent young unskilled and uneducated types quite likely to stay for years.
In earlier years (granted they were years of lower unemployment) MORE people were leaving the DPB and going to work with NO work-testing regime.
2004 12,773
2005 13,484
2006 16,132
One other thing. $6 million represents about 0.03 percent of the $20 billion MSD budget. Big deal. They could easily save the equivalent by dropping some of the highly paid bureaucrats.
Having just been reminded about our $300 million a week borrowing here, that also makes $6 million look skinny; not even worth the iou it was printed on.
Saturday, August 06, 2011
"They fuck you up, your Mum and Dad"
I love my Mum and Dad.
They came for dinner last night. A roast. Because that's all I can cook with real confidence. And my mum, bless her, says she loves my roasts. Leg of lamb. She brought the desert.
I have two close friends I grew up with and Mum and Dad consequently know them well - or knew them well as children. Recently my friends and I got together for a weekend away, one coming from Australia to visit her 90 year-old father. We banded together on a friday and took off for the Wairarapa. Inevitably 4pm - or thereabouts - saw us huddled over a bottle of wine, near an open fire, relishing being able to talk as we always have done. Without reservation and with the security of knowing each other inside out.
But it became apparent that the one who separated from her husband around 4 years ago now, had an attitude to men that was quite irrational. She was always a beauty. But in her fifties is quite convinced - no, convinced isn't the right word - absolutely certain that men are only interested in women superficially.
We dug and delved around why. Kept holding up our own experiences and others that conflicted with hers but she clung passionately to her arguments and examples. As we pushed on, it came out. Her father had always told her that men were only after one thing. He persuaded her he was right. She married early and probably thought she had found the man who was the exception to the rule. Cruelly, after many years of unquestioned faith, that man fell short and found younger (or something) targets for his affection. Of course her father had been right.
I was telling my own Mum and Dad about this. They remember her father. The family lived one house away. My Dad, without hesitation, but quiet recollection, recited the following:
My children were probably mildly shocked to hear Grandad use the f word but are mature enough to understand the context. Dear Grandad. Always makes us laugh, sometimes till we wish he would stop. Always makes us think. Never fucked us up.
But perhaps the lesson is, you will get what you expect from life. If you look for it, you will find it.
They came for dinner last night. A roast. Because that's all I can cook with real confidence. And my mum, bless her, says she loves my roasts. Leg of lamb. She brought the desert.
I have two close friends I grew up with and Mum and Dad consequently know them well - or knew them well as children. Recently my friends and I got together for a weekend away, one coming from Australia to visit her 90 year-old father. We banded together on a friday and took off for the Wairarapa. Inevitably 4pm - or thereabouts - saw us huddled over a bottle of wine, near an open fire, relishing being able to talk as we always have done. Without reservation and with the security of knowing each other inside out.
But it became apparent that the one who separated from her husband around 4 years ago now, had an attitude to men that was quite irrational. She was always a beauty. But in her fifties is quite convinced - no, convinced isn't the right word - absolutely certain that men are only interested in women superficially.
We dug and delved around why. Kept holding up our own experiences and others that conflicted with hers but she clung passionately to her arguments and examples. As we pushed on, it came out. Her father had always told her that men were only after one thing. He persuaded her he was right. She married early and probably thought she had found the man who was the exception to the rule. Cruelly, after many years of unquestioned faith, that man fell short and found younger (or something) targets for his affection. Of course her father had been right.
I was telling my own Mum and Dad about this. They remember her father. The family lived one house away. My Dad, without hesitation, but quiet recollection, recited the following:
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
Philip Larkin
My children were probably mildly shocked to hear Grandad use the f word but are mature enough to understand the context. Dear Grandad. Always makes us laugh, sometimes till we wish he would stop. Always makes us think. Never fucked us up.
But perhaps the lesson is, you will get what you expect from life. If you look for it, you will find it.
Friday, August 05, 2011
DPB cancellations due to incarceration more than double
Periodically I ask MSD for the reasons why people are leaving the DPB. Just tracking trends.
Not much stands out from today's response. Despite the new work-testing regime people are leaving for the reason 'obtained work' at no greater rate. Not when compared to the earlier 2000s.
But the following statistics are interesting enough to graph (the first years are to December; the last two are to June). Since 2002 the number of DPB cancellations due to incarceration has more than doubled.
There are increasingly more men on the DPB and more males than females go to prison from the DPB according to the 2003 Prison Census.
That's a hell of a lot of kids losing a caregiver to prison anyway and the provision of welfare wasn't enough to prevent these recipients resorting to crime, one of the major reasons advocates advance to justify it.
Not much stands out from today's response. Despite the new work-testing regime people are leaving for the reason 'obtained work' at no greater rate. Not when compared to the earlier 2000s.
But the following statistics are interesting enough to graph (the first years are to December; the last two are to June). Since 2002 the number of DPB cancellations due to incarceration has more than doubled.
There are increasingly more men on the DPB and more males than females go to prison from the DPB according to the 2003 Prison Census.
That's a hell of a lot of kids losing a caregiver to prison anyway and the provision of welfare wasn't enough to prevent these recipients resorting to crime, one of the major reasons advocates advance to justify it.
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Greens plan is a blueprint for poverty
The Greens plan to lift 100,000 children out of poverty is unworkable and defies reason on a number of counts.
First the definition of poverty is relative. It puts a number of children below a specified threshold. Arbitrary thresholds are exceedingly troublesome in their own right. The US is currently grappling with a new and better way to measure poverty. In the UK not so long ago hundreds of thousands of children were lifted out of poverty overnight simply by moving the threshold! A move no less silly than the Green's proposal as we shall see.
In New Zealand poverty is usually defined as falling below either 50 or 60 percent of the eqivalised (adjusted for number of householders) median household income. But difficult-to-measure outgoings are just as important as incomes. Most of the 100,000 children the Greens target are in DPB homes. Yet there are nearly twice that number relying on that particular benefit. The government tries to make payments to them that are as equitable as possible. Yet some fall below the defined poverty level when others don't. Which straight away indicates that some have greater outgoings than others. For beneficiaries, outgoings are more amenable to change than incomes. Adjusting expenses will do more to alleviate their children's poverty than waiting for an income increase, all the while racking up debt.
The Greens don't want them to wait. They want a parent who does not work to receive the incentive, the In Work Tax Credit, given to a parent who does. How silly is that? Even the Human Rights Tribunal found that the government was justified in discriminating against non-working parents. If they weren't then welfare advocates could demand beneficiaries receive 100 percent of the median household income!
But just imagine for a moment the Greens achieved their desired rise in benefit payments. An abundance of international research has shown a link between level of payments and rate of unmarried births. Put simply, the more the DPB pays the more people will choose it over work. Children that enter the benefit system at birth stay the longest and subsequently cumulatively cost more. That means what the Greens have budgeted is less than the actual cost over time. But hey what doesn't grow exponentially when it comes to handouts. Paid Parental Leave is a great example. It now costs twice what Treasury initially forecast it would.
The next part of the Green's plan is to re-introduce the Training Incentive Allowance yet Treasury reported to the WWG that this allowance probably contributed to beneficiaries staying on welfare even longer ( as studying became the modus operandi?). In reality there is no case for a beneficiary to not have to get into the same debt as other students do to fund the education they choose. Exceptions only produce incentives for people to make bad choices eg having children before acquiring any means of supporting them.
Raising the minimum wage barely warrants comment. What hasn't been said, and demonstrated, before about the effect minimum wages have on overall employment? They reduce it. When the cost of labour increases, all else remaining equal, employers buy less of it. Extra unemployment incurs additional burden on the benefit system. Which means that again the Greens have under-calculated the cost of such a move.
The last part of the plan is the require rental homes to be insulated. The additional expenditure will end up in the tenant's hands as increased rent. There goes the extra benefit payment which is the first step of the grand plan.
We all know that the Greens are economically the most socialist party in the political spectrum. And we all know that socialism makes countries poor. Socialism makes children poor.
What the Greens have produced is not a plan for less poverty but a blueprint for more.
First the definition of poverty is relative. It puts a number of children below a specified threshold. Arbitrary thresholds are exceedingly troublesome in their own right. The US is currently grappling with a new and better way to measure poverty. In the UK not so long ago hundreds of thousands of children were lifted out of poverty overnight simply by moving the threshold! A move no less silly than the Green's proposal as we shall see.
In New Zealand poverty is usually defined as falling below either 50 or 60 percent of the eqivalised (adjusted for number of householders) median household income. But difficult-to-measure outgoings are just as important as incomes. Most of the 100,000 children the Greens target are in DPB homes. Yet there are nearly twice that number relying on that particular benefit. The government tries to make payments to them that are as equitable as possible. Yet some fall below the defined poverty level when others don't. Which straight away indicates that some have greater outgoings than others. For beneficiaries, outgoings are more amenable to change than incomes. Adjusting expenses will do more to alleviate their children's poverty than waiting for an income increase, all the while racking up debt.
The Greens don't want them to wait. They want a parent who does not work to receive the incentive, the In Work Tax Credit, given to a parent who does. How silly is that? Even the Human Rights Tribunal found that the government was justified in discriminating against non-working parents. If they weren't then welfare advocates could demand beneficiaries receive 100 percent of the median household income!
But just imagine for a moment the Greens achieved their desired rise in benefit payments. An abundance of international research has shown a link between level of payments and rate of unmarried births. Put simply, the more the DPB pays the more people will choose it over work. Children that enter the benefit system at birth stay the longest and subsequently cumulatively cost more. That means what the Greens have budgeted is less than the actual cost over time. But hey what doesn't grow exponentially when it comes to handouts. Paid Parental Leave is a great example. It now costs twice what Treasury initially forecast it would.
The next part of the Green's plan is to re-introduce the Training Incentive Allowance yet Treasury reported to the WWG that this allowance probably contributed to beneficiaries staying on welfare even longer ( as studying became the modus operandi?). In reality there is no case for a beneficiary to not have to get into the same debt as other students do to fund the education they choose. Exceptions only produce incentives for people to make bad choices eg having children before acquiring any means of supporting them.
Raising the minimum wage barely warrants comment. What hasn't been said, and demonstrated, before about the effect minimum wages have on overall employment? They reduce it. When the cost of labour increases, all else remaining equal, employers buy less of it. Extra unemployment incurs additional burden on the benefit system. Which means that again the Greens have under-calculated the cost of such a move.
The last part of the plan is the require rental homes to be insulated. The additional expenditure will end up in the tenant's hands as increased rent. There goes the extra benefit payment which is the first step of the grand plan.
We all know that the Greens are economically the most socialist party in the political spectrum. And we all know that socialism makes countries poor. Socialism makes children poor.
What the Greens have produced is not a plan for less poverty but a blueprint for more.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Are you a Conservative?
Are you a Conservative?
I didn't score enough to need a Conservative Party (8 out of 15). And that was an ambivalent 8 as some of the questions are multi-pronged.
Doesn't solve my problems about who to vote for come November.
I didn't score enough to need a Conservative Party (8 out of 15). And that was an ambivalent 8 as some of the questions are multi-pronged.
Doesn't solve my problems about who to vote for come November.
Why so many NZ children are poor
Yesterday saw the release of the Household Incomes in New Zealand Report which is updated periodically. It is full of data, both domestic and international. Extremely detailed, very lengthy.
What it does usefully highlight is that many statistics are estimates which lead to considerable variation. But this quote says it all about children in poverty in New Zealand:
Yet New Zealand has relatively low unemployment by OECD standards.
What New Zealand does have is a very high proportion of sole parent families living on benefits. Hence the high proportion of 'workless' households.
The high proportion of sole parents, some stats say second highest in the developed world, is a result of social policy accommodation of cultural tradition and feminist dogma. Feminists will say it is the result of male failure to take responsibility but that was secondary. The policy enabled that abrogation.
The very best way - in fact, probably the only way - to reduce the poverty of New Zealand children is to get rid of the policy that creates and sustains (albeit meagrely) sole parent families.
What it does usefully highlight is that many statistics are estimates which lead to considerable variation. But this quote says it all about children in poverty in New Zealand:
What can be said with certainty is that more than one in five and perhaps as many as one in four New Zealand children live in households where there is no adult in full-time employment. These rates and the rate for children in workless households are high by OECD and EU standards.
Yet New Zealand has relatively low unemployment by OECD standards.
What New Zealand does have is a very high proportion of sole parent families living on benefits. Hence the high proportion of 'workless' households.
The high proportion of sole parents, some stats say second highest in the developed world, is a result of social policy accommodation of cultural tradition and feminist dogma. Feminists will say it is the result of male failure to take responsibility but that was secondary. The policy enabled that abrogation.
The very best way - in fact, probably the only way - to reduce the poverty of New Zealand children is to get rid of the policy that creates and sustains (albeit meagrely) sole parent families.
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Having more children on welfare...
...is one thing the general public is largely against.
MSD provided a paper to the WWG on the parameters of the problem.
The data matched what I had been getting through different OIA requests.
22-23 percent add a further child to an existing benefit.
I had always thought that seemed fairly low given the number of families on the DPB with more than one child. Further information in the paper explains why my instincts are probably right. The estimates...
"...only count children who were conceived while the caregiver was receiving the DPB
...count only newborns who were included in benefit on the day of their birth or within four weeks of birth and were still includede in benefit three months after birth."
People cycle on and off the benefit constantly. The deliberate adding of a child could be planned whilst off benefit; in fact, for the very reason of getting back onto one.
Here's another quote which again matches my information, or rather, lack of. The estimates...
"...are not able to separately identify whether these newborn children were added to a benefit as a result of an adoption, or a whangai or foster arrangement."
Isn't privacy taken too far when people expect support for their 'dependent' children but don't have to identify what the relationship is? And again I remind you that the whangai process is without any legal standing in NZ justice system. No wonder Maori children are particularly vulnerable.
MSD provided a paper to the WWG on the parameters of the problem.
The data matched what I had been getting through different OIA requests.
22-23 percent add a further child to an existing benefit.
I had always thought that seemed fairly low given the number of families on the DPB with more than one child. Further information in the paper explains why my instincts are probably right. The estimates...
"...only count children who were conceived while the caregiver was receiving the DPB
...count only newborns who were included in benefit on the day of their birth or within four weeks of birth and were still includede in benefit three months after birth."
People cycle on and off the benefit constantly. The deliberate adding of a child could be planned whilst off benefit; in fact, for the very reason of getting back onto one.
Here's another quote which again matches my information, or rather, lack of. The estimates...
"...are not able to separately identify whether these newborn children were added to a benefit as a result of an adoption, or a whangai or foster arrangement."
Isn't privacy taken too far when people expect support for their 'dependent' children but don't have to identify what the relationship is? And again I remind you that the whangai process is without any legal standing in NZ justice system. No wonder Maori children are particularly vulnerable.
Monday, August 01, 2011
The NZ Herald's blitz on child hunger rolls on
The NZ Herald's blitz on hungry children in New Zealand continues today with a further piece about the Waikato. Simon Collins at least has the level of objectivity required to acknowledge that the hunger was persistent through the 'economic boom', something I pointed to last week.
A five-year doctoral study by Waikato University sociologist Dr Kellie McNeill has found that charities served 25,000 free meals, Work and Income gave out 12,000 food grants and foodbanks gave out 4000 food parcels in Hamilton in 2006-07.
That was at a time when the economy was booming.
Specifically, in the Waikato, the number of unemployed beneficiaries dropped from 2,800 to 1,900 over the period. Almost a third. But the other three main benefits were flat or grew. There were around 8,000 on the DPB - half Maori.
It would be interesting to know how many of the families given food parcels or food grants were on the DPB. I am sure the researcher, given her long stint - 12 years dependent on same - would have paid attention to circumstances of hungry individuals.
It is clear that the phenomena of child poverty and child hunger are effects of the DPB. The Herald's blitz, following a series of articles about sole parents triggered by the WWG proposals, may have done society a favour by allowing subscribers to read between the lines. Relatively few signed up for the requested monthly donation to feed a New Zealand child (even though I imagine many are deeply concerned about their general circumstances). At a time when we have been seeing tragic footage streaming in from Somalia it seems almost obscene that chubby kids in South Auckland are being held up as our National tragedy.
There is growing national awareness and unease about the 'new' structure of communities; those previously 'working-class' but today largely made up of single parent families (with or without a hanger-on) whose economic hub is welfare.
The NZ Herald has contributed to this awareness. But I am not sure that they were after what is likely to be the result.
Come November the public will give National the green light to do something meaningful about welfare and the learned helplessness it induces. I just hope the public's faith in the current government is well-placed.
A five-year doctoral study by Waikato University sociologist Dr Kellie McNeill has found that charities served 25,000 free meals, Work and Income gave out 12,000 food grants and foodbanks gave out 4000 food parcels in Hamilton in 2006-07.
That was at a time when the economy was booming.
Specifically, in the Waikato, the number of unemployed beneficiaries dropped from 2,800 to 1,900 over the period. Almost a third. But the other three main benefits were flat or grew. There were around 8,000 on the DPB - half Maori.
It would be interesting to know how many of the families given food parcels or food grants were on the DPB. I am sure the researcher, given her long stint - 12 years dependent on same - would have paid attention to circumstances of hungry individuals.
It is clear that the phenomena of child poverty and child hunger are effects of the DPB. The Herald's blitz, following a series of articles about sole parents triggered by the WWG proposals, may have done society a favour by allowing subscribers to read between the lines. Relatively few signed up for the requested monthly donation to feed a New Zealand child (even though I imagine many are deeply concerned about their general circumstances). At a time when we have been seeing tragic footage streaming in from Somalia it seems almost obscene that chubby kids in South Auckland are being held up as our National tragedy.
There is growing national awareness and unease about the 'new' structure of communities; those previously 'working-class' but today largely made up of single parent families (with or without a hanger-on) whose economic hub is welfare.
The NZ Herald has contributed to this awareness. But I am not sure that they were after what is likely to be the result.
Come November the public will give National the green light to do something meaningful about welfare and the learned helplessness it induces. I just hope the public's faith in the current government is well-placed.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Crucial admission
So someone with credibility comes out and says that some boys expect to grow up and live off the mothers of their children because that is what they have grown up with. I have not a shred of doubt that Alison Sutherland is correct.
Not mentioned is the expectation is most certainly more widespread amongst Maori. Consider recent research I previously linked to that showed those teenagers, male or female, identifying as sole Maori, were seven times more likely to become teen parents.
This is an insidious and dangerous state of affairs because, like children that are meal tickets and therefore unvalued and unloved for themselves, so are females. They will be abused in one way or another; to one degree or another.
The article goes on to say,
Wrong.
They can be in a relationship with a partner and receive the DPB so long as it is not deemed as 'in the nature of marriage'. This involves the male not providing any financial support or emotional committment. Perfect.
Christ. I don't know what is wrong with the people who have the power to change this state of affairs yet let it continue. It is thoroughly de-humanising, immoral on any scale of values and exponentially self-perpetuating.
Alison Sutherland, who works in Wairarapa schools with children who have behavioural problems, says many of the boys she deals with – who haven't even reached their teenage years – can only see being the father of children and living with their mothers ahead.
"That is their career future," she said of youngsters who were opting out of education and employment because they saw babies as a source of income.
But coupled with the desire for children was a complete lack of understanding of what being a good parent might entail.
"There is no warmth about loving little children or wanting to be good parents. It is purely about this being a pathway to an income," the one-time principal of a youth justice facility school said.
"They have a perception that their future is to be unemployed. That is their norm. They have no sensitivity for the children – they see it as their form of income."
Sutherland said in some cases the children were merely repeating what they saw in their own homes.
Not mentioned is the expectation is most certainly more widespread amongst Maori. Consider recent research I previously linked to that showed those teenagers, male or female, identifying as sole Maori, were seven times more likely to become teen parents.
This is an insidious and dangerous state of affairs because, like children that are meal tickets and therefore unvalued and unloved for themselves, so are females. They will be abused in one way or another; to one degree or another.
The article goes on to say,
The sole-parent domestic purposes benefit is available to those over 18 who are not in a relationship with the other parent and do not have a partner, or who have lost their support.
Wrong.
They can be in a relationship with a partner and receive the DPB so long as it is not deemed as 'in the nature of marriage'. This involves the male not providing any financial support or emotional committment. Perfect.
Christ. I don't know what is wrong with the people who have the power to change this state of affairs yet let it continue. It is thoroughly de-humanising, immoral on any scale of values and exponentially self-perpetuating.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Annette King - uber politician
Where was deputy Labour leader, Annette King, on the removal of section 59? A staunch supporter.
In this video she, and Deborah Morris Travers, tell us that it is clear police will use discretion and common sense to administer the new law wisely.
Since the law change there has been a large rise in reports of child abuse.
Now, about the Green Paper proposal to make reporting of child abuse mandatory, this is her position:
She said mandatory reporting could lead to vexatious claims, such as neighbours dobbing in each other simply because they don't like each other."I'd also have grave concerns about the ability of CYF to handle a huge influx of what could be seen to be child abuse but may not be."
So she has abandoned her former faith in the police and CYFS to handle changed legislation.
In this 2008 press release she describes John Key as talking "out of both sides of his mouth on the serious issue of child abuse."
Annette King is now using the exact arguments of those who opposed the anti-smacking law, which she pooh-poohed at the time. Her description of the PM should be self-directed.
In this video she, and Deborah Morris Travers, tell us that it is clear police will use discretion and common sense to administer the new law wisely.
Since the law change there has been a large rise in reports of child abuse.
Now, about the Green Paper proposal to make reporting of child abuse mandatory, this is her position:
She said mandatory reporting could lead to vexatious claims, such as neighbours dobbing in each other simply because they don't like each other."I'd also have grave concerns about the ability of CYF to handle a huge influx of what could be seen to be child abuse but may not be."
So she has abandoned her former faith in the police and CYFS to handle changed legislation.
In this 2008 press release she describes John Key as talking "out of both sides of his mouth on the serious issue of child abuse."
Annette King is now using the exact arguments of those who opposed the anti-smacking law, which she pooh-poohed at the time. Her description of the PM should be self-directed.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
National's Green Paper on Child Abuse
Apparently, "Ms Bennett told reporters today the discussion paper was different, gusty and controversial." (Gusty? Very.) Gutsy? Not. Different? I wish. Controversial? Like whether cinnamon or cocoa is better on cappuccino.
It is 'talked up' to disguise.
Just another governmental PR consultative exercise.
Talks predominantly about Leadership and then Asks for Answers. So, so many.
Uses the word 'appropriate' 14 times.
Uses the word 'vision' 21 times.
Green.
Green?
Made from Blue and Yellow.
Foodbanks - build them and they will come
This is a graph depicting food parcel uptake from today's NZ Herald.
First thing I notice is that the usage of foodbanks grew rapidly in the first part of the 2000's when unemployment and reliance on benefits was dropping.
Then I notice that after the introduction of WFF in 2005 usage dropped but by 2008 had resumed earlier levels.
Next the ratio of children to adults has increased from 2.86 children per adult in 2001-02 to 3.86 by 2010-11. One extra child. Which reminds me of a trick low income parents can pull. They simply invent an extra mouth. A client of mine got caught out when she couldn't remember the name of the extra mouth (cat got the mince from that particular parcel.)
But in any event the graph does not include details about whether the applicant is a parent or caregiver. It could be that when the ratio was lower there were more single applicants.
Obviously there is an impact from the recession. But underlying that there is a growing habit. A typical example of how governments or other organisations act to meet 'need' and in the process, create it.
Another wonderful example is the US food stamp program - now ever-so sensitively named the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. A temporary measure which has become part of the wall paper. Foodbanks - build them and they will come.
First thing I notice is that the usage of foodbanks grew rapidly in the first part of the 2000's when unemployment and reliance on benefits was dropping.
Then I notice that after the introduction of WFF in 2005 usage dropped but by 2008 had resumed earlier levels.
Next the ratio of children to adults has increased from 2.86 children per adult in 2001-02 to 3.86 by 2010-11. One extra child. Which reminds me of a trick low income parents can pull. They simply invent an extra mouth. A client of mine got caught out when she couldn't remember the name of the extra mouth (cat got the mince from that particular parcel.)
But in any event the graph does not include details about whether the applicant is a parent or caregiver. It could be that when the ratio was lower there were more single applicants.
Obviously there is an impact from the recession. But underlying that there is a growing habit. A typical example of how governments or other organisations act to meet 'need' and in the process, create it.
Another wonderful example is the US food stamp program - now ever-so sensitively named the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. A temporary measure which has become part of the wall paper. Foodbanks - build them and they will come.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Countdown decision the right one
The answer is 'no'. I will not sponsor a New Zealand child 50 cents a day so he or she can eat breakfast. I will not because
1/ Taxation already provides Family Tax Credits for that purpose
2/ It is the parent's responsibility to feed their children
3/ More handouts will further reduce that responsibility
4/ Reducing parental responsibility only teaches children they can expect the same in turn
5/ There are conflicting messages about obesity among the lowest quintile and hunger both pushed by leftist outfits who make a living out of their advocacy
6/ I choose to use my money to sponsor a child in Malawi or Mali or wherever World Vision is currently using it to improve farming methods, build community irrigation schemes, etc., to make people self-sufficient rather than dumb and dependent
Good on Countdown for pulling out. I would change my shopping habits to show my appreciation but can't. I already shop there.
1/ Taxation already provides Family Tax Credits for that purpose
2/ It is the parent's responsibility to feed their children
3/ More handouts will further reduce that responsibility
4/ Reducing parental responsibility only teaches children they can expect the same in turn
5/ There are conflicting messages about obesity among the lowest quintile and hunger both pushed by leftist outfits who make a living out of their advocacy
6/ I choose to use my money to sponsor a child in Malawi or Mali or wherever World Vision is currently using it to improve farming methods, build community irrigation schemes, etc., to make people self-sufficient rather than dumb and dependent
Good on Countdown for pulling out. I would change my shopping habits to show my appreciation but can't. I already shop there.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Arguing over who is "patronising"
Kathryn Ryan, Radio NZ interviewing UK Secretary for Work and Pensions Ian Duncan Smith.
Smith talks about assessing, monitoring, supporting and sanctioning unemployed or 'disabled' people. Ryan talks about the state hectoring them.
He describes communities which have a culture of worklessness, hopelessness and low life expectancy. Only miles away are aspirational communities with much longer life expectation. He wants the people in poor neighbourhoods to mirror that aspiration.
She calls him patronising and he says, more or less, her attitude is patronising.
Overall I don't hold a huge amount of hope for the UK reforms. Smith is obsessed with simplicity of operation and making work pay. But won't go to the lengths that the US has gone. For instance, where the US (many states) expect work from sole parents when the youngest is one (or even younger), Smith will only apply similar expectations when youngest is 5. Unless temporary means temporary, the attitude to welfare won't change. That was what Clinton understood and built the 1996 reforms around. Until temporary means temporary, people will keep getting themselves into dependent circumstances.
Smith talks about assessing, monitoring, supporting and sanctioning unemployed or 'disabled' people. Ryan talks about the state hectoring them.
He describes communities which have a culture of worklessness, hopelessness and low life expectancy. Only miles away are aspirational communities with much longer life expectation. He wants the people in poor neighbourhoods to mirror that aspiration.
She calls him patronising and he says, more or less, her attitude is patronising.
Overall I don't hold a huge amount of hope for the UK reforms. Smith is obsessed with simplicity of operation and making work pay. But won't go to the lengths that the US has gone. For instance, where the US (many states) expect work from sole parents when the youngest is one (or even younger), Smith will only apply similar expectations when youngest is 5. Unless temporary means temporary, the attitude to welfare won't change. That was what Clinton understood and built the 1996 reforms around. Until temporary means temporary, people will keep getting themselves into dependent circumstances.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Sweden: not an egalitarian paradise
This is cut and paste from James Bartholomew's blog, originally from the Spectator (no link). Really worth the read.
Sweden is iconic like Marilyn Munroe or Karl Marx. It is supposed to stand for something special: a kind of socialist paradise where socialism and a big welfare state all work together with being a successful, rich country.
The Left use it as a triumphant example: “See! It works in Sweden! High levels of equality, a big welfare state, socialism and it works!” People think that Sweden proves it is possible for a socialist welfare state to be prosperous, happy and civilised. They think it shows a relatively high levels of tax do not make much difference to economic performance. In fact, for the Left, Sweden demonstrates that all that they dream of is possible. An article in the Guardian of November 16th 2008 (“Where tax goes up to 60pc, and everybody’s happy paying it”) shows the idea is alive and well. The Left can’t quite work out why similar ideas in Britain have never led to quite the same success. But they still look to Sweden as an ideal.
The main trouble with this idea is that when Sweden was as close as it ever has been to being a socialist welfare state, it went bust. For a while, it may have seemed like a great model but it was unsustainable. The Swedish government ran out of money. Why? Because Sweden found, like Britain, that if you pay people to be unemployed, take early retirement or be sick, you get a gradually increasing number of people who claim the relevant benefits. And if you have sky-high taxes people don’t work as hard and/or they cheat and/or they leave.
Then came the financial crisis of the 1990s. Unemployment surged and it reached the point where there were simply too many well-remunerated claimants for too few taxpayers. More than one out of every five people of working age was on one benefit or another. The ideal of Sweden still worshipped by the Left as if nothing had happened didn’t actually work.
But Sweden is different from Marilyn Munroe and Karl Marx. Those icons are dead and unchanging. For Sweden, though, life went on. Going bust could not be the end of the story. The country woke up from the dream and now had to face reality. This is the untold story of Sweden. It went bust and then it made changes.
It toughened up its benefits. The money you could get for unemployment benefit was reduced. So was the length of time for which you can get it. A claimant is required to take menial jobs more quickly than before. This is a process which has applied to virtually all the benefits and which continues to this day.
The Swedes gave up a tradition lasting a generation. They started voting for non-socialist governments. These parties have won the last two elections in a row which has not happened at any time since the Second World War. In response to the pressure of events and the growing success of the non-socialist parties, the Social Democrats have also joined in the movement towards greater realism. It is reminiscent of Labour giving up on state ownership.
There has been a series of measures over the last 20 years and more which have been aimed at making Swedish capitalism freer and more effective. You could call them Thatcherite reforms.
A variety of industries from trains to taxis have been de-regulated. Competition has been allowed in business post. Farm prices which were negotiated are now set by the market. The production of electricity has been opened to competition. Taxation is complicated because there are local as well as national taxes but broadly speaking, the top rate of tax has been brought down from over 80pc to 60pc.
Then Sweden went beyond what Margaret Thatcher introduced in Britain. It went further in introducing choice and competition in healthcare and education. Free schools – that is to say schools started by parents, teachers or private companies which get paid the same amount per pupil as government schools – now account for 10 percent of children being taught in Sweden. And the proportion is still growing. One director of a private school company in Stockholm told me that he expects the proportion easily to reach 30% in the next 15 years.
Supposedly socialist Sweden has gone further than the British coalition government by allowing profit-making private companies to open new schools. Nor are the local authorities allowed to get in their way. The key political thing here is that these companies are not allowed to receive a penny more per pupil than the government-run schools. So when the private schools do better in exams, no one can claim it was because they had more resources. On the contrary, the schools spend less because they are taking out a profit margin of, say, five or six per cent. So they demonstrate that they can offer a better education for lower cost. In any case, it is up to the parents to decide. Nobody has to go to a private school. These schools only get customers who want to be there.
Sweden is also adopting a free market, capitalist approach to healthcare that would give Cameron and Clegg the vapours. If you go to a hospital or clinic there is no cult belief in healthcare being absolutely ‘free at the point of delivery’. You pay some £20 for a first visit. Nearly a third of all primary healthcare – that is general practitioners – is provided by private practices. The figure is 60pc in Stockholm which has led this revolution. Private competition is now set to be opened up in specialist care, too. The idea is that consultants will be taken out of the hospitals where overheads are high and people will increasingly be able to choose private providers of specialist care at no extra cost. The money will follow the patient. Meanwhile some government hospitals are contracted out to private companies to operate.
Beyond all that, there is a complete ignorance in Britain of just how capitalist Sweden is. The steel industry has been privatised as has forestry (remember the furore over this sort of thing in Britain?) Inheritance tax has been abolished. Yes, that’s right, abolished. The country found that too many rich people were leaving so they got rid of a tax which remains in Britain at 40pc.
Mistakes about the nature of Sweden go on and on. People think it is unambiguously an equal and happy society. But while Sweden appears relatively equal in income terms, in terms of wealth it is more unequal than the United States. You can certainly argue that this bare statistic is misleading but then the statistic about income equality could be misleading, too. If the super-rich leave a country, as quite a few did when tax rates were absurdly higher, that would make it appear a more equal society. That is one of a several factors which could exaggerate income equality in Sweden.
Sweden is also probably not such a happy society, either. The incidence of unmarried and lone parenting and divorce is very high. Research from around the world tells us that these things cause unhappiness and alienation for all those concerned – the father and mother as well as the children. Beneath the happy surface of a sunny evening in beautiful Stockholm, is a lot of loneliness. There are said to be more single person households there than in any other city in the world. Certainly there are more such households in Sweden than in any other country in the European Union.
There is also high unemployment among the young and immigrants. This is surely partly because of an effective minimum wage imposed on the various industries by the still-powerful unions. Those who cannot command a good wage, are not allowed to work for a lower one. The consequence is a high unemployment rate among those with lower skills or less experience.
Another illusion is that the welfare state in Sweden is endlessly generous. It isn’t. The main benefits are strictly based on paying insurance premiums. If you have not got a record of those payments, the social assistance you will get (commonly known as ‘income support’ in Britain) is a great deal less and is also difficult to obtain at all. It is administered by local regions out of their own funds and they are reluctant to hand out more than a minimum.
To put it bluntly, Sweden is not a socialist, welfare state paradise of equals because it is not socialist; its welfare state is in some ways tougher than ours; it is not a paradise nor are they as equal as assumed. In fact, take any popularly accepted belief about Sweden and it is probably wrong.
The Swedes are still averting their eyes from two major problems – unemployment caused by the high effective minimum wage and the lone parenting issue. But in general, they have been more realistic and active in dealing with the sort of problems that have become normal in modern democracies. They saw how socialism and over-generous welfare statism were causing potential disasters. And they reacted. The political atmosphere in Sweden is very different from that in Britain. There is a strong desire to reach consensus wherever possible. One almost gets a feeling there, that this is a democracy that is actually grown-up.
Yes, we have some things to learn from Sweden. But it is not how to be a socialist paradise. It is, rather, how to react when the idea of a socialist paradise is shown to be fatally flawed.
Sweden is iconic like Marilyn Munroe or Karl Marx. It is supposed to stand for something special: a kind of socialist paradise where socialism and a big welfare state all work together with being a successful, rich country.
The Left use it as a triumphant example: “See! It works in Sweden! High levels of equality, a big welfare state, socialism and it works!” People think that Sweden proves it is possible for a socialist welfare state to be prosperous, happy and civilised. They think it shows a relatively high levels of tax do not make much difference to economic performance. In fact, for the Left, Sweden demonstrates that all that they dream of is possible. An article in the Guardian of November 16th 2008 (“Where tax goes up to 60pc, and everybody’s happy paying it”) shows the idea is alive and well. The Left can’t quite work out why similar ideas in Britain have never led to quite the same success. But they still look to Sweden as an ideal.
The main trouble with this idea is that when Sweden was as close as it ever has been to being a socialist welfare state, it went bust. For a while, it may have seemed like a great model but it was unsustainable. The Swedish government ran out of money. Why? Because Sweden found, like Britain, that if you pay people to be unemployed, take early retirement or be sick, you get a gradually increasing number of people who claim the relevant benefits. And if you have sky-high taxes people don’t work as hard and/or they cheat and/or they leave.
Then came the financial crisis of the 1990s. Unemployment surged and it reached the point where there were simply too many well-remunerated claimants for too few taxpayers. More than one out of every five people of working age was on one benefit or another. The ideal of Sweden still worshipped by the Left as if nothing had happened didn’t actually work.
But Sweden is different from Marilyn Munroe and Karl Marx. Those icons are dead and unchanging. For Sweden, though, life went on. Going bust could not be the end of the story. The country woke up from the dream and now had to face reality. This is the untold story of Sweden. It went bust and then it made changes.
It toughened up its benefits. The money you could get for unemployment benefit was reduced. So was the length of time for which you can get it. A claimant is required to take menial jobs more quickly than before. This is a process which has applied to virtually all the benefits and which continues to this day.
The Swedes gave up a tradition lasting a generation. They started voting for non-socialist governments. These parties have won the last two elections in a row which has not happened at any time since the Second World War. In response to the pressure of events and the growing success of the non-socialist parties, the Social Democrats have also joined in the movement towards greater realism. It is reminiscent of Labour giving up on state ownership.
There has been a series of measures over the last 20 years and more which have been aimed at making Swedish capitalism freer and more effective. You could call them Thatcherite reforms.
A variety of industries from trains to taxis have been de-regulated. Competition has been allowed in business post. Farm prices which were negotiated are now set by the market. The production of electricity has been opened to competition. Taxation is complicated because there are local as well as national taxes but broadly speaking, the top rate of tax has been brought down from over 80pc to 60pc.
Then Sweden went beyond what Margaret Thatcher introduced in Britain. It went further in introducing choice and competition in healthcare and education. Free schools – that is to say schools started by parents, teachers or private companies which get paid the same amount per pupil as government schools – now account for 10 percent of children being taught in Sweden. And the proportion is still growing. One director of a private school company in Stockholm told me that he expects the proportion easily to reach 30% in the next 15 years.
Supposedly socialist Sweden has gone further than the British coalition government by allowing profit-making private companies to open new schools. Nor are the local authorities allowed to get in their way. The key political thing here is that these companies are not allowed to receive a penny more per pupil than the government-run schools. So when the private schools do better in exams, no one can claim it was because they had more resources. On the contrary, the schools spend less because they are taking out a profit margin of, say, five or six per cent. So they demonstrate that they can offer a better education for lower cost. In any case, it is up to the parents to decide. Nobody has to go to a private school. These schools only get customers who want to be there.
Sweden is also adopting a free market, capitalist approach to healthcare that would give Cameron and Clegg the vapours. If you go to a hospital or clinic there is no cult belief in healthcare being absolutely ‘free at the point of delivery’. You pay some £20 for a first visit. Nearly a third of all primary healthcare – that is general practitioners – is provided by private practices. The figure is 60pc in Stockholm which has led this revolution. Private competition is now set to be opened up in specialist care, too. The idea is that consultants will be taken out of the hospitals where overheads are high and people will increasingly be able to choose private providers of specialist care at no extra cost. The money will follow the patient. Meanwhile some government hospitals are contracted out to private companies to operate.
Beyond all that, there is a complete ignorance in Britain of just how capitalist Sweden is. The steel industry has been privatised as has forestry (remember the furore over this sort of thing in Britain?) Inheritance tax has been abolished. Yes, that’s right, abolished. The country found that too many rich people were leaving so they got rid of a tax which remains in Britain at 40pc.
Mistakes about the nature of Sweden go on and on. People think it is unambiguously an equal and happy society. But while Sweden appears relatively equal in income terms, in terms of wealth it is more unequal than the United States. You can certainly argue that this bare statistic is misleading but then the statistic about income equality could be misleading, too. If the super-rich leave a country, as quite a few did when tax rates were absurdly higher, that would make it appear a more equal society. That is one of a several factors which could exaggerate income equality in Sweden.
Sweden is also probably not such a happy society, either. The incidence of unmarried and lone parenting and divorce is very high. Research from around the world tells us that these things cause unhappiness and alienation for all those concerned – the father and mother as well as the children. Beneath the happy surface of a sunny evening in beautiful Stockholm, is a lot of loneliness. There are said to be more single person households there than in any other city in the world. Certainly there are more such households in Sweden than in any other country in the European Union.
There is also high unemployment among the young and immigrants. This is surely partly because of an effective minimum wage imposed on the various industries by the still-powerful unions. Those who cannot command a good wage, are not allowed to work for a lower one. The consequence is a high unemployment rate among those with lower skills or less experience.
Another illusion is that the welfare state in Sweden is endlessly generous. It isn’t. The main benefits are strictly based on paying insurance premiums. If you have not got a record of those payments, the social assistance you will get (commonly known as ‘income support’ in Britain) is a great deal less and is also difficult to obtain at all. It is administered by local regions out of their own funds and they are reluctant to hand out more than a minimum.
To put it bluntly, Sweden is not a socialist, welfare state paradise of equals because it is not socialist; its welfare state is in some ways tougher than ours; it is not a paradise nor are they as equal as assumed. In fact, take any popularly accepted belief about Sweden and it is probably wrong.
The Swedes are still averting their eyes from two major problems – unemployment caused by the high effective minimum wage and the lone parenting issue. But in general, they have been more realistic and active in dealing with the sort of problems that have become normal in modern democracies. They saw how socialism and over-generous welfare statism were causing potential disasters. And they reacted. The political atmosphere in Sweden is very different from that in Britain. There is a strong desire to reach consensus wherever possible. One almost gets a feeling there, that this is a democracy that is actually grown-up.
Yes, we have some things to learn from Sweden. But it is not how to be a socialist paradise. It is, rather, how to react when the idea of a socialist paradise is shown to be fatally flawed.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Angry today
Sometimes after I have a letter published in the paper people react. First I get a message of encouragement left on the answerphone supporting the views expressed. Older man.
Later my 12 year-old answered the phone to someone who has been ringing me since 2001. The caller gives me only her first name. Was a time her son would get on the other extension and they would harangue me doubly. An elderly lady who goes on and on without taking a breath about walking a mile in her shoes, unfairness, rich capitalists,etc etc. Yesterday she knowingly visited it on my daughter. That makes me very, very angry.
Then this message was put on an older post (alerted through e-mail). Probably a further response after searching my name:
In essence I agree with this comment. Children having to live in crime ridden neighbourhoods and attend schools with children who are learning their criminal parents ways, but little else, too quickly is appalling. Yes, wages are too low and taxes are too high. More wealth redistribution through the labour market instead of via the government would improve that.
And I agree that I am lucky I live where I live and am married to who I am married to. But is that a reason not to speak out about the problems that the commentor accurately describes? I go into these neighbourhoods so I know they exist. And to a large extent they exist because of long-term welfare.
So detractor and I are actually on the same page. He or she just doesn't think I have any business writing to the newspaper expressing my views publicly. Perhaps he or she would prefer I buried my head in the sand I am lucky to have at the bottom of the street and forget about what life is like for some children. Adopt the ' I'm alright Jack' approach to life? Yes?
Later my 12 year-old answered the phone to someone who has been ringing me since 2001. The caller gives me only her first name. Was a time her son would get on the other extension and they would harangue me doubly. An elderly lady who goes on and on without taking a breath about walking a mile in her shoes, unfairness, rich capitalists,etc etc. Yesterday she knowingly visited it on my daughter. That makes me very, very angry.
Then this message was put on an older post (alerted through e-mail). Probably a further response after searching my name:
The minimum Wage for a 40 hour week is too low.The person on this could also get accommadation benefit and working for families etc if they are elligible.You didnt mention this.Have you ever lived on this amount Lindsay?Where would you live?Would you want to live in a bad,crime ridden neighbourhood with children in your care?How would you like to live with a drug dealer across the road?A convicted paedophile next door who has just got out after 18 months in jail for raping his step children.His wife likes to invite the young children of the street in for biscuits and lollies?I bet you would not.That is the choice some have.Money can help you live in a better area and your children are then able to attend a better school.Life is nice in Eastbourne.Life is nice when you have a nice husband who cares about his family.Life is nice when nothing bad has happened to you or your family.I dont believe in long term welfare for single parents but I do believe in appropriate help to enable people to become independent.But I also dont think children should have to live in crime ridden neighbourhoods.
In essence I agree with this comment. Children having to live in crime ridden neighbourhoods and attend schools with children who are learning their criminal parents ways, but little else, too quickly is appalling. Yes, wages are too low and taxes are too high. More wealth redistribution through the labour market instead of via the government would improve that.
And I agree that I am lucky I live where I live and am married to who I am married to. But is that a reason not to speak out about the problems that the commentor accurately describes? I go into these neighbourhoods so I know they exist. And to a large extent they exist because of long-term welfare.
So detractor and I are actually on the same page. He or she just doesn't think I have any business writing to the newspaper expressing my views publicly. Perhaps he or she would prefer I buried my head in the sand I am lucky to have at the bottom of the street and forget about what life is like for some children. Adopt the ' I'm alright Jack' approach to life? Yes?
Thursday, July 21, 2011
The cost of teenagers who end up in prison
This fact is contained in a report released by CYF yesterday:
"The estimated cost to society of the one percent of teenagers who end up in prison is around $3 million each over their lifespan."
There are very roughly 420,000 13-19 year-olds.
4,200 end up in prison.
At a cost of $12.6 billion.
I imagine the cost is based on youth and justice services, policing, incarceration, benefits. The time they spend locked up or on a benefit will probably span decades so $3 million looks entirely reasonable.
And this largely male group will father more offspring than average adding to the next generation of criminality and costs.
"The estimated cost to society of the one percent of teenagers who end up in prison is around $3 million each over their lifespan."
There are very roughly 420,000 13-19 year-olds.
4,200 end up in prison.
At a cost of $12.6 billion.
I imagine the cost is based on youth and justice services, policing, incarceration, benefits. The time they spend locked up or on a benefit will probably span decades so $3 million looks entirely reasonable.
And this largely male group will father more offspring than average adding to the next generation of criminality and costs.
Slack, biased reporting
From Page 2 of Monday's Dominion Post:
A leading paediatrics academic has slammed the Welfare Working Group for not considering the well-being of children.
In an open letter to the Government, Professor Innes Asher said important issues were overlooked in the report and she urged that several of its recommendations be rejected.
Welfare cuts in 1991 drove children into poverty, not parents into work, and the same mistakes should not be made again, she said.
"The unpaid work of nurturing needs to be given high value - not just job-seeking and paid work. Parents of babies and young children should not be labelled job seekers."
The Welfare Working Group, led by Paula Rebstock, suggested current benefits be replaced by a universal Jobseekers Support allowance and that all but the very sick be forced to look for work.
It also recommended beneficiary parents be forced to look for work once their youngest child was 14 weeks old, the Government has ruled that out but it was not clear whether it would set a later age, such as 12 months. The current requirement kicks in once a youngest child is three.
More
My response published today under the headline Poverty is not the problem:
A leading paediatrics academic has slammed the Welfare Working Group for not considering the well-being of children.
In an open letter to the Government, Professor Innes Asher said important issues were overlooked in the report and she urged that several of its recommendations be rejected.
Welfare cuts in 1991 drove children into poverty, not parents into work, and the same mistakes should not be made again, she said.
"The unpaid work of nurturing needs to be given high value - not just job-seeking and paid work. Parents of babies and young children should not be labelled job seekers."
The Welfare Working Group, led by Paula Rebstock, suggested current benefits be replaced by a universal Jobseekers Support allowance and that all but the very sick be forced to look for work.
It also recommended beneficiary parents be forced to look for work once their youngest child was 14 weeks old, the Government has ruled that out but it was not clear whether it would set a later age, such as 12 months. The current requirement kicks in once a youngest child is three.
More
My response published today under the headline Poverty is not the problem:
Dear Editor
A recent piece about Professor Innes Asher's open letter to the government which "slammed the Welfare Working Group for not considering the well-being of children," contains a number of inaccuracies about work-testing proposals and current arrangements for sole parents. The 14 week recommendation applied to beneficiaries who continue to add children to an existing benefit. The "current requirement kicks in" when the youngest child is 6, not 3 as reported.
Innes Asher believes that material poverty is putting children of beneficiaries at risk. However, the poorest New Zealanders are actually Asians. Asian children are not routinely beset with health and other social problems.
The reason the WWG targetted sole parents is because at least a third began on the DPB as teenagers. Their chances of leaving welfare are the lowest;and their children have multiple disadvantages primarily caused by familial dysfunction, not poverty.
Increasing benefit payments - Asher's solution - will only lead to more people going on welfare. This has been shown by numerous overseas studies.
The problem for children is not poverty. It is the often chaotic, unstructured and unsafe environments that long-term welfare enables.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Someone I admire
My volunteering went into suspension when I got back into my art full time. But I keep in touch with one ex-client - now a very good friend. When I met her she had never had a job, had been on the DPB around 20 years. I would spend a morning with her once a week initially on practical stuff, getting the household functioning etc. The trust built between us gradually. On my birthday we went to the local pub, played pool and drank raspberry lemonade and hot chocolate. She has a really mean right arm and while a much flashier player than me not as consistent. But you can picture the incongruity of the two of us - someone who had lived on the streets as a teenager while I'd enjoyed (took for granted) a cossetted upbringing.
About two years into our relationship she rang to say she had gotten a job! I was almost disappointed because it would mean curtailing my visits. Naturally though I was as excited as she was but privately cautious about whether she could hold it down.
Three years on and she is still there. I pick her up from work at lunchtime and we go to the local McDonalds. She regales me with the latest gossip. Nearly got the sack when she got into a scuffle with an old enemy from the street days who recognised her at work. I say, workplace or not, walk away. That's the smart, clever thing to do. I am always trying to get her to redefine what is smart; how she can get the edge on someone. What works in her value system.
Now working she gets her family tax credit in a lump sum. Flush yesterday she had decided she needs to get her youngest daughter on-line. She recognises that the daughter is becoming disadvantaged school-wise. So I give her some advice about laptops, vodems etc. She doesn't have a landline so a pre-paid vodem will be perfect.
It's a buyers market, I impress on her. Make sure you get the best deal you can. Ten percent discount might be a hundred bucks left in your pocket. Imagine how many smokes that'll buy.(Yeah, yeah, maybe not in her best interests but as she always says, she can't be perfect. Better is enough.)
I get two texts in quick succession last night. Can't get the sim card in the t-stick. She has a telecom version I am unfamiliar with. I ring and am no help but she manages to sort through the initial problem on the 0800 number. Then she stumbles when trying to register. She has no e-mail address!! Of course she hasn't. This is the first computer she has ever owned. She can't get on-line to get an e-mail address if she can't register. Imagine the frustration. Mr 0800 can't talk her through this one. He keeps going on about dot com dot com she says.
OK. I will get you an address and ring you back with it. That I do and find myself explaining what @ looks like and how to hold down the shift key and punch in the number 2. Unfortunately she cannot even get back to the invitation to register now.
Tomorrow she will be back at ______'s getting them to show her how to use the equipment they sold her. It reminds me of the Plunket carseat service. I watched the women who ran that asking Pacific mothers if they knew how to install the seat. The Pacific people, as is sometimes their way, would compliantly, nod and smile without a clue. Probably did it myself but my English is strong enough to be able to follow written instructions. The Plunket people, happy to take the money, if at all in doubt, should have showed hirers how to use the seats safely.
Anyway, last nights episode brought the 'digital divide' home to me. I am very pleased that my friend is getting her child into a world that is totally foreign to her. And my admiration for the way she has increasingly assumed responsibilities over the past three to four years is genuine. Her childhood experiences would have sent most down a path they would never get off. Yes she had more than once been her own worst enemy but if her eventual move to greater independence and responsibility could be replicated across the country NZ would be a hell of a lot better off. She gives me hope and sustenance.
About two years into our relationship she rang to say she had gotten a job! I was almost disappointed because it would mean curtailing my visits. Naturally though I was as excited as she was but privately cautious about whether she could hold it down.
Three years on and she is still there. I pick her up from work at lunchtime and we go to the local McDonalds. She regales me with the latest gossip. Nearly got the sack when she got into a scuffle with an old enemy from the street days who recognised her at work. I say, workplace or not, walk away. That's the smart, clever thing to do. I am always trying to get her to redefine what is smart; how she can get the edge on someone. What works in her value system.
Now working she gets her family tax credit in a lump sum. Flush yesterday she had decided she needs to get her youngest daughter on-line. She recognises that the daughter is becoming disadvantaged school-wise. So I give her some advice about laptops, vodems etc. She doesn't have a landline so a pre-paid vodem will be perfect.
It's a buyers market, I impress on her. Make sure you get the best deal you can. Ten percent discount might be a hundred bucks left in your pocket. Imagine how many smokes that'll buy.(Yeah, yeah, maybe not in her best interests but as she always says, she can't be perfect. Better is enough.)
I get two texts in quick succession last night. Can't get the sim card in the t-stick. She has a telecom version I am unfamiliar with. I ring and am no help but she manages to sort through the initial problem on the 0800 number. Then she stumbles when trying to register. She has no e-mail address!! Of course she hasn't. This is the first computer she has ever owned. She can't get on-line to get an e-mail address if she can't register. Imagine the frustration. Mr 0800 can't talk her through this one. He keeps going on about dot com dot com she says.
OK. I will get you an address and ring you back with it. That I do and find myself explaining what @ looks like and how to hold down the shift key and punch in the number 2. Unfortunately she cannot even get back to the invitation to register now.
Tomorrow she will be back at ______'s getting them to show her how to use the equipment they sold her. It reminds me of the Plunket carseat service. I watched the women who ran that asking Pacific mothers if they knew how to install the seat. The Pacific people, as is sometimes their way, would compliantly, nod and smile without a clue. Probably did it myself but my English is strong enough to be able to follow written instructions. The Plunket people, happy to take the money, if at all in doubt, should have showed hirers how to use the seats safely.
Anyway, last nights episode brought the 'digital divide' home to me. I am very pleased that my friend is getting her child into a world that is totally foreign to her. And my admiration for the way she has increasingly assumed responsibilities over the past three to four years is genuine. Her childhood experiences would have sent most down a path they would never get off. Yes she had more than once been her own worst enemy but if her eventual move to greater independence and responsibility could be replicated across the country NZ would be a hell of a lot better off. She gives me hope and sustenance.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Disadvantaged youth report relies on incorrect data
A report about disadvantaged youth in NZ contains incorrect data.
The teenage birth rate for 2008 (December quarter) was 33 per 1,000 - not somewhere around 22.
The NZ Institute has relied on OECD data. I have previously written to the OECD pointing out their errors in this particular table but it remains uncorrected. The US total was also considerably higher at 41.5 percent.
Don't have time now to look at the other statistics. They may be OK but I have long since decided not to rely on the OECD Family Database. And the NZ Institute could have easily cross-checked the NZ statistic with Statistics New Zealand.
The teenage birth rate for 2008 (December quarter) was 33 per 1,000 - not somewhere around 22.
The NZ Institute has relied on OECD data. I have previously written to the OECD pointing out their errors in this particular table but it remains uncorrected. The US total was also considerably higher at 41.5 percent.
Don't have time now to look at the other statistics. They may be OK but I have long since decided not to rely on the OECD Family Database. And the NZ Institute could have easily cross-checked the NZ statistic with Statistics New Zealand.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Transparent Labour strategies fall flat
When the Capital Gains Tax was a 'good news' story Goff was fronting it (and it was getting as much media chat and talkback before the official announcement as after). It struck me that Clark used to leave it to her Finance Minister Cullen to talk economic matters. But it was Goff constantly fronting on the 'game-changer' - the CGT.
Now it has failed to revive Labour in the polls, finance spokesman David Cunliffe is suddenly the face. Looks like a very transparent strategy. Strategies that treat people like fools deserve to fall flat. Probably more from the maladroit Mallard.
Now it has failed to revive Labour in the polls, finance spokesman David Cunliffe is suddenly the face. Looks like a very transparent strategy. Strategies that treat people like fools deserve to fall flat. Probably more from the maladroit Mallard.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
A very disturbing account
If you have the time today watch the DVD Family First has just released about cases where parents have been dragged through the courts for 'assault' on their children. I saw the film at the conference and it has impact. After the film had finished three of the couples involvd actually took the stage. These are real people whose lives have become a disorientated nightmare.
These are people whose natural impulse was to tell CYF or the police exactly what had happened in the belief that reasonable fellow adults would be able to put their actions in context. That telling the truth would be the best course of action.
It wasn't. And if you have a look at what 10 lawyers are saying now, if CYF or the police turn up on your doorstep with an accusation of 'assault' on your child, or another, say nothing.
That is the world we live in. Our best and honest instincts must be surpressed because the state cannot be trusted. We rail against cases like the Kahuis where witnesses clammed up but are discovering that we must do the same. In the first instance at least.
So well-intentioned sorts who believe if you have nothing to hide the law can only be your friend, think again.
These are people whose natural impulse was to tell CYF or the police exactly what had happened in the belief that reasonable fellow adults would be able to put their actions in context. That telling the truth would be the best course of action.
It wasn't. And if you have a look at what 10 lawyers are saying now, if CYF or the police turn up on your doorstep with an accusation of 'assault' on your child, or another, say nothing.
That is the world we live in. Our best and honest instincts must be surpressed because the state cannot be trusted. We rail against cases like the Kahuis where witnesses clammed up but are discovering that we must do the same. In the first instance at least.
So well-intentioned sorts who believe if you have nothing to hide the law can only be your friend, think again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
