Unemployment rate - how NZ stacks up

The unemployment rate rose slightly from 5.4 to 5.7 in the march quarter. I have only just had chance to look at the tables. What interested me most was the global situation.

That wonderful semi-socialist paradise of Scandinavia  has only one country with a better unemployment rate than NZ - Norway. Denmark is just behind on 5.8; Sweden trails with 7.1 and Finland tails with 9.2 percent.

If you've listened to any of the US presidential campaign speeches - especially Bernie Sanders - you would think the country was utterly stagnant and that unemployment was raging. In reality, at 4.9% their rate is enviable by most other country's standards.

Of course, unemployment rates never tell a complete story.

It's a surprise to see Japan so high (ie lowest unemployment) on the table given their economic troubles. Much of the work is insecure and low paid:

"... the labor participation rate has risen during his three years in office, pushing the unemployment rate to a two-decade low. But the headline figures mask underlying weakness. During Mr. Abe’s tenure, the number of regular workers has fallen, while the percentage of nonregular workers has hit a record. The jump in labor participation has been fueled mostly by an increase in the number of married women and people aged over 60 taking part-time jobs as incomes of heads of households fall and the pension age rises, Goldman Sachs said in a January report."

And Iceland at number one? Not long ago it was bankrupt. Interesting summary of how that played out here:

Further, while Iceland’s recovery has far outpaced those of its peers, it hasn't been wholly without hardship. Employment is up, but credit remains hard to come by, and Icelandic pensions have taken a hit. Worse, the country is struggling to find new ways to diversify its economy; it’s currently promoting tourism and tech startups, but hasn’t exactly found a sector to replace the banks.

That sounds familiar.

At the other end of the spectrum comes the newly  unemployed  Greece, with 1 in 4 with no work, and the traditionally unemployed Spain, with 1 in 5 unemployed. Spain has spent almost 75% of the last 32 years with an unemployment rate in excess of 15 percent.

Out of 34 countries NZ is ranked 12th, just ahead of Australia and behind the US and the UK.

Locally, the key thing to understand is that,

New Zealand's labour force grows 1.5 percent
The labour force increased 1.5 percent in the March 2016 quarter, with 38,000 more people in the labour force. This was the largest quarterly growth since December 2004.

The labour force is those people seeking work. It is a subset of the working age population (currently standing at 69% and known as labour force participation rate).  Of those 38,000 newbies (who could young people entering the working age population, immigrants/ refugees or ex-pats returning, or someone returning to work after raising a family) 10,000 are unemployed.

So even though there were actually more people employed (up 0.2%) over the quarter, the unemployment rate still rose by 0.3%.

Party donations per MP in 2015

Labour - $8,750
ACT - $162,000
National - $23,728
Greens - $28,571
Maori Party - $14,000
NZ First - $6,666
United Future - $0

Data sources here and here

Sorry about the slip in spelling.

Quote of the Day

"The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty."    - Lord Chief Justice Halisham

End of Life Choice Bill still in ballot

A snippet in this morning's DomPost about David Seymour's disappointment that National vetoed a debate on his End of Life Choice Bill confused. Surely it can't be over as quickly and  simply as that?

However the bill is still in the ballot and if it is drawn will have to be debated. Or at least officially rejected by a majority of MPs.

I sincerely hope that it is drawn. Today.

Morgan Foundation attacks personal freedom ... again

The Morgan Foundation were at it again last week. Attacking personal freedoms to achieve the society they want. Whether its cats, climate or corpulence, regard for personal choice is utterly disregarded.

If you think I exaggerate read the latest here.

Instead of a facile debate over whether a sugar tax would work or not, we should be discussing which we value more – living in a free society where you can eat what you like and burden the state, or whether we value having a healthy, productive society. 

My response which was published yesterday (with editing):

 Geoff Simmons (Ideology behind the argument against sugar tax, DomPost, April 29) argues against the "freedom of choice" to eat what we like and wants taxes to curb consumption. These taxes will however apply to all consumers, most of whom do not have an over-eating problem. To control the behaviour of a minority, Simmons is completely comfortable with removing the majority's freedom of choice. In fact, he really dislikes freedom of choice, saying it will "clog our hospitals". That's just silly. Poor choice is what leads to obesity and ill-health. A seeming inability to deal with that issue should not lead to further punishment of the majority. Those who would so easily relinquish personal autonomy in favour of state dictates about what and how much should be eaten are frankly, scary.

And for good measure here is another from somebody called Amanda Purdy, published today:

A housing rental crisis?

The NZ Herald has a report  about the Salvation Army handing out increased numbers of food parcels  due to rising housing costs. In Auckland anyway.

Average rents for three-bedroom Otara houses rose from $382 a week in March 2014 to $466 this March

The article doesn't record the source so I am assuming it's from Barfoot and Thompson. Here's their March 2015 chart followed by March 2016.

The rise in the total South Auckland area, for 3 three-bedroom house, is a lot less than in Otara - 7  versus 22 percent.

But even then, Barfoot and Thompson say:

Over the last 12 months, Auckland saw an increase of $28 or 5.8% (for all property types). 

Whereas Stats NZ say, over the same period:

Rentals for housing increased 2.3 percent, with Auckland up 3.2 percent and Canterbury up 1.2 percent. 

3.2% is a much smaller increase than 5.8%

Auckland has always been one of the least affordable rental markets. But because it gets reported so much, people assume the same applies throughout NZ. It doesn't (though it suits the Sallies to fuel that perception when appearing on telly to promote their annual Red Shield Appeal.)

The following is from Statistics NZ  and shows rents as a percentage of equivalised household incomes for each NZ region:

(Left click for full table)

Those stats go to 2012. The average total rent payments in each of the following years has been:

2013  $273.50
2014  $288.90
2015  $301.00

But household incomes are also rising, even for beneficiaries (CPI adjustments yearly and recent $25 raise).

Just going back to Auckland, another aspect of the reported non-affordability is missed, at least when using official stats. Household incomes are equivalised according to number of members. So larger families will have their incomes reduced by the process. This means that the percentage that rent swallows is higher. That would certainly apply in South Auckland.

Benefit babies at greatest risk

Following up from my previous post, "Intrigued" left a link at Whale Oil saying that the benefit baby statistics correlate strongly with geographic areas for the greatest child risk. He referred to Treasury work. (Follow the link for a further breakdown of the Auckland region.)

Compare my graph to the Treasury's below:

Here is the comment left at Whale Oil in full. Interesting:

"For anyone who has an interest in this area there is now access to useful data via the Integrated Data Infrastructure - a joint project between various departments - Corrections, Health, CYF, W&I and Stats NZ to map where the children at most risk are in NZ. It is no surprise that the areas with the highest welfare dependency (as per Lindsay Mitchell's analysis above) also show areas with the most at risk children. If anyone is interested in seeing the information that is now available and an interactive map of NZ, go to https://shinyapps.stats.govt.n...
And http://www.treasury.govt.nz/pu... A lot of the work being done by MSD on the overhaul of CYF integrates this information and it is a credit to this Government (in my opinion) that they are looking at the real cost to the State over the lifetime of a child born into a family with the identified risk factors (there are 4 key risk indicators) with the aim of investing in social welfare programmes that will (hopefully) mitigate against the perpetual cycle of welfare dependency, child abuse, crime etc and all the worst outcomes for children. It will be interesting to see how it all manifests in the next iteration of CYF but I sincerely hope it works as there are significant problems for tens of thousands of children in NZ. I think it's our best hope yet from what I have seen. After working in this field for nearly 2 decades I can assure you I've seen nothing from the left of the political spectrum or the CPAGs of this world to really come up with a solution for the real "child poverty" in NZ in all its ugly forms - other than use the term as a political club to try and score political points. I've been to the CPAG annual Budget Breakfast analyses in past years and yearned for a shred of common sense or practical and workable solutions from them and come away disillusioned and angry at their ideological grandstanding."

Where the benefit babies are born

Every year I track how many benefit babies there are relative to the total births. Being a 'benefit baby' means relying on a parent or caregiver's benefit  by the the end of their birth year. Most will become reliant nearer to their birth date rather than first birthday. Many will go on to experience long-term deprivation.

This year I asked for a  breakdown by Work and Income Service Centre. That was provided. Then I asked the Ministry of Health for District Health Board birth data for 2015. They very quickly obliged without an OIA. Credit to them.

It was then straight forward to place each service centre in a DHB  and calculate the percentage of babies in each district that would be benefit-dependent before their first birthday.

TAIRAWHITI

Tairawhiti is Gisborne northwards. Almost one in three children born in 2015 would be on welfare either immediately or shortly thereafter.

This is more than three times the rate of the lowest DHB, Auckland.

AUCKLAND DISPARITY

The disparity, however, within  the greater Auckland region is highlighted by the difference between Counties Manukau at 21.4% and Auckland at less than half that rate at 9.7%. This disparity is far greater than the disparity in the Wellington region (compare Capital and Coast to Hutt.)

HIGH MAORI POPULATIONS

Not surprisingly Tairawhiti is followed by Northland. You will have noticed the tallest columns are those with high Maori populations.(Of all the benefit babies, 54 percent had a Maori parent or caregiver.)

Lakes covers the Rotorua and Taupo region south to Turangi and Whanganui takes in Marton and Taihape.

Hawkes Bay goes to Wairoa in the north and Waipukarau in the south. Counties Manukau is self-explanatory.

These then are the five DHB areas where from 21 to 32 percent of newborns have families unable to support them independently, usually from birth.

COSMOPOLITAN CENTRES DOMINATE THE LOWEST RATES

At the other end are the cosmopolitan centres. In ascending order, Auckland, Christchurch, Dunedin and Wellington.

Every South Island DHB - bar South Canterbury which is essentially Timaru and inland - is below the national average.

CONTRIBUTION TO CHILD POVERTY

Child poverty is largely (though not exclusively) a result of benefit babies.

But it isn't as if Gisborne and Northland have suddenly been plunged into a depression and unemployment crisis. In fact employment in these regions is far better than it's been in the past. It isn't as if these babies are on their parent's unemployment benefit.

Almost three quarters of benefit babies are on a single parent benefit.

There's the nub of the problem. A lack of two committed parents prepared to take financial responsibility for having a child.

(To end on a positive note, the national average is dropping. At long last.)

"Millennials Hate Capitalism Almost as Much as They Hate Socialism"

Experiencing this first-hand on a daily basis makes the content of the following piece from the Reason.com blog all the more relevant:

"When pollsters probe young people further about socialism and capitalism, they tend to find that respondents don't have clear concepts of these economic philosophies. To many millennials, "socialism" doesn't mean a government-managed economy but something like what we have now, only with more subsidized health care, student-loan forgiveness, and mandatory paid parental leave. Millennials were small children, if they were even born yet, when the Soviet Union dissolved. "Socialism" isn't Romania and Yugoslavia but Scandinavia, not Karl Marx and union halls but Bernie Sanders and Twitter."

Must-read from Karl du Fresne

This is a powerful reminder of the grim injustice (in the name of 'justice') ideologues can wreak.

Latest total benefit numbers - back where we started from

Well, not quite where we started from. That'd be zero. But back where we started from when National took govt.

The slow total decline continues. Down to 9.9% of the working age population.

There's a blip with JobSeeker support but nothing dramatic or necessarily trendsetting. It may be saying something about the employment situation. It might just be ageing single parents being moved onto Jobseeker support. Little to be inferred by the reduction in YP/YPP for 18+. The teenage birth rate is dropping so perhaps unsurprising. The old invalid benefit - Supported Living Payment - remains stubbornly high though any reduction is unusual compared to the past few years. Reliance on welfare due to psychological conditions continues to grow. The Sole Parent Support reduction is the biggest and best news leading to fewer children on benefits.

I don't see any smoking gun in the data tables.

Total numbers are dropping. Just not fast enough for some readers. Or me.

As the drop is post GFC  it's worth looking where we were pre GFC.

At 9.9% of the working age population.

(The Super numbers are the big growth area and while most people don't think of it as a benefit, it's included in the tables.

Almost 700,000.

Up 23% since March 2011.)

Quote of the Day

From a piece in this morning's DomPost about junk science by Matt Ridley (British journalist and Conservative MP), prompted by Robert De Niro joining into the anti-vaccine brigade.

"Instead of evidence-based policy making, pseudo-science specialises in policy-based evidence making."

English tells truth and gets it in the neck

A Labour MP from Palmerston North is outraged that Bill English has told the truth.

English said that there are Kiwi men who are supposed to be available for work but don't turn up; that can't read and write and are virtually unemployable. That's why NZ imports immigrant farm workers.

The Labour MP says this is the government's fault after 8 years at the helm.

Really? If the individual and the individual's family do not value education, if they prefer to make money illicitly or from benefits, if they get their kicks from a variety of law-breaking  activities and spend much of their time cycling in and out of prison, is it really Bill English' fault?

The underclass, which we don't seem to talk about as much anymore, was just as bad after Labour's last 9 year innings.

This type of  petty, cheap-shot politics grinds my gears. What would the Labour MP do in English' shoes? Sweep illiteracy and unemployability under the carpet and only ever present a rose-tinted picture of a certain slice of society?

Because when that happens, problems never get solved. English has probably been the most innovative and daring Finance Minister when it comes to social policy. That willingness to try new approaches is born out of his recognition and acknowledgement of just how hopeless certain people have become.

And when Bill English said that prisons are a "moral and fiscal failure" did any Labour MPs jump up and down then?

CYF overhaul: crux of the matter overlooked again

Another voluminous  report into CYF; a long-winded ministerial response; multiple cabinet papers and a proposed radical overhaul promised

But when will the system that turns children into careless accidents or meal tickets be radically overhauled?

Because until then, none of these other investigations and re-inventions will matter a damn. There have been welfare reforms but the number of children being born into beneficiary families remains at the same level.

Of children born between 2005 and 2007 and known to CYF by age five:
 39 percent had mothers who had been receiving a benefit for more than four out of the last five years preceding their birth, and 60 percent had a primary carer who was receiving a benefit at the time of their birth,
 37 percent had a parent who had a criminal conviction in the five years prior to the child’s birth,
 69 percent had parents where there was a family violence incident attended by Police in the five years prior to the child’s birth, and
 36 percent had parents who were known to CYF as a child.

(Right-click on image to enlarge)

Confusion in CYF report

This is from the Rebstock report into CYF released today:

 "In 2014, CYF received 152,000 family violence notifications from Police involving 97,000 children. The majority of these were not acted upon as the nature of the concerns did not reach CYFs threshold for response and there was a lack of alternative services to address the needs of these families in the community."

My initial reaction to this was utter surprise. A majority not acted on? That seems shocking.

But that's because it's not right.

Consider the CYF statistics:

In 2014 there were 57,889 family violence referrals from Police and 88,768 care and protection reports of concern.

According to CYF:

Notifications comprise “reports of concern” (which may require action by Child, Youth and Family) and “Police family violence referrals” (which do not require action by Child, Youth and Family). We receive reports of concern from Education, Health, Police, Courts, social service providers, family members, and members of the public. 

And:

Police family violence referrals are not assessed by Child, Youth and Family. Police family violence referrals are the result of Police attending a family violence incident where children are present or normally resident at the household concerned and where Police assess that Child, Youth and Family action is not required.

So it would appear the report stats are wrong and misleading. The report goes on to state however:

 These notifications represent a significant opportunity for early intervention to provide the support families need before concerns escalate into situations of harm to children.

Which and how many? Can sound recommendations be made based on unsound data?

The Third Way triumphed

It's only 10 to 15  years since many of us were fighting the introduction of Paid Parental Leave, Working for Families, interest-free student loans AND Kiwibank - Jim Anderton's pet project and National's latest pragmatic point-of-sameness.

The principles behind that opposition have not changed. But our current government has abandoned them.

My son, who is no intellectual slouch, has taken to ridiculing the free market.

I point out that libertarianism cannot be blamed for the last recession. That no libertarian would support government bailing out private financial institutions. YES he says but you would support deregulation of them.

I counter that deregulation can only succeed when consequences are real; when they cannot be avoided through bail-outs.

So, he says, you would support allowing financial collapse just to teach people consequences?

You get the circular nature of these exchanges.

The up and coming voters have been taught to blame greed and exploitation on the free market (which has not actually been free)  as if the free market is just a beast that governments tolerate; that governments can and should control in the pursuit of utilitarian goals.

The collective memory of a society functioning without (or at least with a smaller) welfare state - mass compulsory wealth redistribution - is fading.

Mass redistribution brings with it commandeering control of each major aspect of life - education, health and welfare. Once government assumes  the responsibility for financing provision of these, it must then gradually assume control of each and every personal action which imposes an associated cost.

The idea remains abhorrent to me.

Earlier dissenters seem lulled or numbed into submission. NZ may have a so-called right-of-centre government but Labour's 'Third Way' has triumphed.

3,999,999

Helen Clark may feel like she has a "stadium of 4 million people" behind her - and judging by overwhelming opinion expressed today she has -  but she can count me out.

I respected Clark as a PM for acknowledging the problems of chronic inter-generational despondency and dysfunction.

But even then she would not move against the prevailing feminist and socialist theory of (false) empowerment of women - the DPB.

Back on the DPB band wagon? Being petty when NZ could have the first woman heading the UN?

1/ The impoverishment of thousands of children is no small beer

2/  I do not care about nationalism or feminism. I do not get warm fuzzies about the connection Clark has to New Zealand or to my gender.

It has made me deeply uncomfortable today that so very many, John Key included, are prepared to forget not personal animosities (they are small beer)  but the ideological antipathy that freedom- embracing, small govt acolytes had for Clark.

Whoever the successful candidate is (notwithstanding the arguable impotence of the UN) I would prefer someone who has not made it their life's work to advance the responsibility and power of the state to enrich lives.

Inequality an excuse for theft

Yesterday I made a prediction about the response to Rodney Hide's account of chasing a shoplifter.

Quite bizarrely the type of reaction I predicted has come about, but not in the comments section after Rodney's column.

In this mornings DomPost Jane Bowron also writes about her experience in witnessing shop-lifting from her local supermarket. There must be a lot of it going on . Here is an excerpt from her column,

The gap between rich and poor is widening and with the long term stagnation of wages, theft for some is a desperate option while for organised habitual offenders, it's simply what they do for a job.

But Bowron isn't just an apologist for the victims of inequality. She even sympathizes with the second group.

The latter are relatively small-scale operators trying to make a buck, while corporate theft is allowed to go unchecked, is lauded and treated as a swaggering success story.

And earlier in her piece she refers to the "hugely profitable" status of the supermarket being ripped off, as though that also somehow balances the books.

But just as her defence of thieves is muddle-headed, so is the column in its entirety, the conclusion being citizens should arrest these offenders.

If we could just get over our apathy and take the global citizen's arrest principle wider, we might strike a blow against the empire of our own apathy.  

Why suggest that joe public should pursue and apprehend an individual who has just been painted as some sort of latter-day Robin Hood?

Prediction

Rodney Hide writes a column about supermarkets' inability to defend their property from shoplifters because of asinine assault laws.

I will make a prediction about the comments that will ensue.

At least some will resemble the following:

It is a tragedy that a man has to steal to feed his family. And it's your politics, Rodney, that caused mass unemployment and poverty in this country.

After all, the left has been excusing theft for decades.

Never mind the small matter of job opportunities in Christchurch and the surrounding regions. The fact that Canterbury has the lowest unemployment rate in NZ is just inconvenient.

Govt closes gap between benefit and employment income

Today beneficiary parents receive a pay rise of $25 weekly or $1,300 yearly.

It is impossible without asking an OIA question to know exactly what that means in terms of percentage rise. That's because even though basic rates are known and constant, all the add-ons vary individually.

The last time the government published an average beneficiary payment was 2013:

An average sole parent with two children under thirteen, living in South Auckland would receive around $642 on benefit, including accommodation supplement and a minimal extra allowance for costs.

As benefits are inflation proofed (though add-ons aren't) that would increase to $647.95 in the last quarter of 2015.

With today's increase she  would be receiving $673 a week.

The best figure to compare that to is the average weekly incomes from wages and salaries:

Female $752
Female Maori $723
Female Pacific $698

Either sex aged:

15-19 $345
20-24 $698
25-29 $852

The table I am quoting doesn't provide gender breakdown with age but female rates are overall  consistently lower than male.

So, all in all, for a young  sole mother - particularly Maori or Pacific -  $673 is looking fairly attractive.

Yes, the work-testing has been extended to part-time (20 hours) for mothers with youngest child aged 3.

But the work obligations are only ever useful in places where there are jobs.

It'll be interesting to observe the behavioural changes over the coming 2-3 years.

Remember that the early work-testing policy implemented to stop people adding children to an existing benefit has already failed.

Now that's a scary thought

There probably are as many persons coerced into acting, not as they want, but as others want, through majority rule as through totalitarian dictatorship.

– John C. Sparks, The Freeman [May 1971]

(hat-tip FFF)

Grant Robertson's baseless claims

According to Grant Robertson today:

"New Zealand’s growth per person is significantly lower than countries like the UK and America, showing our economy is driven by population growth rather than productivity, says Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson.
“Along with flat per person growth, we have seen a fall in per capita real incomes. This means on average Kiwis are getting poorer. That’s because the key driver is population growth, not new businesses, industries and exports which is what’s needed to boost growth per person."

I queried the OECD database for GDP per capita between 2008 and 2015:

(Left-click to enlarge)

This shows that the growth in the UK was 2.4%; in the US, 4.4% and in NZ, 7.5 %

Here's the data graphed.

No NZ isn't flash overall but it's comparatively  better now than it was when Labour left office.

Robertson even included Japan in his headline yet their growth was lower than the UK or US between 2008 and 2014.

What globalisation looks like

Idly reading an article I was captured by the photo.

What city is that a photo from, I wondered?


I can see 3 or 4 Asian looking people, maybe a Philippine, 2 or 3 Caucasian people, a tall black man, someone who looks slightly eastern European or even middle eastern.

It just intrigued me because I can only partly see the trains logo.

Then I checked the source - the Fraser Institute. So Canada. I googled Canadian Subway logos and found this.




Toronto. Without the source clues I never would have guessed.

Globalisation. It's a wonderful thing.

Crowded subway trains are not.

Distribution of preference for new flag by electorate

Another graph from David. I don't know enough off the top of my head to see the pattern but he says the pro-change vote aligns to National seats, particularly in the South Island. Also the strong no-change vote in Winston country. Obviously the Maori seats are excluded in this picture. They all voted strongly for the status quo (but with low turn-out).

(Left-click to enlarge image)

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

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

The correlation is pretty strong.

(Left-click to enlarge)

A third of people couldn't be bothered

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

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

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

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

A profoundly stupid idea

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

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

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

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

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

Its a truly frightening prospect.

Labour's $40 billion policy (updated)

The universal basic income.

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

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

Pensioners?

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

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

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

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

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

Not 15.3% or even 10.3%

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

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

Credit to Bill English for calling it without equivocation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Treasury concluded:

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

On-line bullying the new fall guy

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

Here's today's silly headline

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

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

Puberty, you egg.

 At 10 life is uncomplicated.

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

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

Oh, on-line bullying. Of course.

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

Keep going.

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

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

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

Here's some sense from Psychology Today:

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

How National is killing Labour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour have been utterly out-Laboured.

David Seymour then inserted a supplementary:

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

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

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

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

Forget P houses - focus on the P babies

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

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

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

In NZ CYF advises it's social workers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rates rise 14 percent in 3 years

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOT $1.321

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

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

"Prawn addiction"

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HRC calls for adoption laws to stop discriminating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote of the Day

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

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

And that was in 1971!

(Hat tip FFF)

Update: And right on cue here comes another addition

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

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

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

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

How to stop children being added to existing benefits?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"VOTE FOR CHANGE" missed the bus

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

How badly organised was that bit of politicking?

All our ballot papers have been returned already.

Sir Bob was serious

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

Dear Dr Crampton,

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

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

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

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely,
Sir Robert Jones

The real cost of gangs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what have we got so far:

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

Total $521 million annually.

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

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

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

Flag Poll

Radio NZ is running a "highly unscientific" poll.

At 7:50am

Presidential candidate's plans for reducing poverty

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

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

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

Haskins concludes:

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

Gang women no tender lillies either

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

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

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

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

This data also brought a wry smile to my face:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$8,195 annually. Cheaper than a superannuitant.

Minimum wage earners wealthier than their employers?

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

Source

ACT Conference

I was at the ACT conference yesterday to speak about welfare, but also heard  most of the other addresses. Some  highlights:

1/When Ruth Money - an independent advocate for victims, particularly of sexual assault - took questions, two were from young members (male and female)  who wanted to know whether she had concerns about 'victims' who were those falsely accused of crimes but acquitted. Should there be compensation for instance? This warmed my heart. It's very encouraging to hear the evidence of young minds appreciating the importance of justice at a more nuanced level, especially in ACT. It would be very bad form for a fellow speaker to ask a question when the time was limited but the one in my mind was similar. Does she have any concerns about the increasing numbers of people imprisoned without trial?

2/ Hearing Dame Lesley Max questioning  bureaucrats  prioritizing the non-stigmatization of children over the identification of the most at-risk groups. From memory she called it immoral

3/ Retirement funding specialist Michael Littlewood saying whatever policy decisions we make today will not effect what taxpayers choose to pay to support retired people at any time in the future. In 2066, or 2046 or 2086. Think about it.

4/ Seeing a couple of ex Libertarian buddies in attendance, and Don Brash still taking an interest. Just sorry I  couldn't find the time to say hello to many familiar faces.

5/ Not seeing John Banks there (nothing personal. I just never thought he promoted the ACT values I identify with).

6/ David Seymour's refreshing  resemblance to a real person and not a real politician. There was widespread popularity for his decision not to accept a ministerial role.

Whatever the media reports it was a very positive, good-humoured and forward-looking conference.

"The Closing of the Liberal Mind"

Kim Holmes writes in advance of his forthcoming book, "The Closing of the Liberal Mind":


Why have liberals become so intolerant? They think nothing of denying someone as prominent as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from speaking on a college campus. They embrace activists who shut down speakers. They publicly shame people for the slightest deviation from liberal orthodoxy.

Their mindset is the very definition of closed-mindedness.

For them everything from science to the law is “settled” once they get into power. Progress is a one-way street. Their mindset is the very definition of closed-mindedness.

The easy answer would be “they are all bad people.” But frankly that’s a cop-out. Not all liberals are bad people, any more than all conservatives are angels. No doubt among the fevered minions of liberal activists there are people with, shall we say, psychological issues, but that doesn’t explain why so many otherwise reasonable people are so beholden to liberalism as an ideology.

The short answer is that it pays. A lot of people in and out of government benefit. Liberalism also makes people feel good. Whether you are politician dispensing government benefits or the citizen receiving them, liberalism hides the self-interest and sometimes even greed that motivate people.

But the devolution of liberalism into something now openly illiberal has causes far more complex than these familiar explanations provide.

For one thing, liberalism is no longer mainly about ideas. It is about power—as in who has it and who doesn’t. Believing they already know the answers to all questions, liberals view politics and governing as mopping up operations.

More