Why are employers bearing responsibility for family violence?

It's refreshing to see National MP Mark Mitchell talking about unintended consequences.

Jan Logie's family violence bill makes employers provide leave for employees to take time off work if they need to leave a relationship. RNZ reports:

When the bill first came up at Parliament it had a strong National Party backing, but following a select committee process in which amendments were made to reduce an employer's say in the matter, the party got cold feet.

Justice spokesperson Mark Mitchell said that was mostly because of the impact it could have on small-to-medium sized businesses which, he said, could end up in arbitration or strained for time or finance.

National now plans to introduce a SOP and the Employers and Manufacturers Union supports them. Small enterprises account for 29% of all employees.

But beyond these concerns I am somewhat befuddled by the need for this legislation.

We know that extricating oneself from a violent relationship can be extremely difficult and dangerous. Assuming the violence is on the male side, just after leaving him is when she is most vulnerable. He is insanely jealous at the idea he can't have her and control her any more and this is when he is most likely to harm her. The RNZ article alludes briefly to a particular typical case of this.

He will try to hunt her down. And her workplace is a target. If she is not there, having been granted leave, all well and good (though her colleagues may be exposed to danger when he turns up and is thwarted).

But why would she ever feel safely able to return there? Or how long before she can feel safely able to return? Weeks, months?

Surely it is better to deal with the threatening ex? Isn't that why the nature of protection orders was changed, to allow police greater powers of arrest?

And I'm no fan of an over-empowered police force but find myself arguing for it when faced with unpalatable alternatives.(I could go into a complete rant here about the expanding welfare state; the undermining of stable two parent families and the advent of young males being raised in single mother, serial 'fathers', abusive environments that render them thugs in turn, but will refrain).

It seems manifestly unjust that employers are having to bear this level of responsibility for family violence. Left to me I would oppose the bill.

Why more mothers and babies die in the US

Political left-wing commentator Gordon Campbell writes a column in my local paper, the Hutt News. Last week's (I can't find it on-line)  was essentially about the Royal and Jacinda babies; the price of maternity care in the United States and despite the cost, the "dire"quality of care resulting in extraordinarily high infant and mother deaths. A typical anti-capitalist making the numbers tell his story.

My response:

Gordon Campbell, Hutt News, May 8, blames "dire" quality of care for the relatively high US infant mortality and maternal death rates. It is my experience that whenever statistics diverge strongly from the 'norm' there are sound reasons why, often based on how they are derived.

In 2016 Science Daily pointed out that some countries treat babies born after a very low gestation period and with very low odds of surviving as 'stillbirths'. In the United States these babies would be considered 'born' despite their high chances of death. Accordingly, "These premature births are the biggest factor in explaining the United States' high infant mortality rate."

Similarly, maternal deaths are also measured differently. According to the Economist, 2017, standard definitions used to make international comparisons are not used in the US. The World Health Organisation mandates a measurement based on a maternal death from pregnancy complications  from when the mother becomes pregnant to six weeks after the birth (or termination of pregnancy). New Zealand adheres to this. The US, however, measures deaths up to one year after the birth. As suicide is a leading cause of death among pregnant and new mothers in NZ and the US, extending the period of measurement to one year would make a significant difference to the recorded death rate.

Additionally, The Economist explains:"In rich countries, [maternal] deaths are tallied from vital-registration systems which in turn compile data from death certificates. These, however, are known to undercount maternal deaths, partly because doctors must select a cause of death from thousands of codes. They are more likely to consider the subset reserved for medical problems caused by pregnancy when the form has a checkbox asking whether the woman had been pregnant.
America added this checkbox to its standard death certificate in 2003, though it took more than a decade for all states to adopt it. It has been a mixed blessing, says Andreea Creanga of Johns Hopkins University. A recent study found that its growing use accounted for 80% of the steep rise in maternal mortality recorded in 2000-14."

The United States generally outperforms other countries in the collection and dissemination of rigorous data. Its information systems produce exhaustive, accurate and accessible statistics through which a proper understanding of matters can be achieved. They cannot though control a critic's lack of comprehension about comparability across countries.

Paying the Pipers

Just published at NZCPR:

According to the Dominion Post, April 25, ” … the Government is setting up a welfare overhaul ‘expert advisory group’ supported by a secretariat of officials from different departments.” 1

Labour has promised the Greens an overhaul. The ghost of Metiria Turei hovers. Lest we forget, the ex Green co-leader  pleaded poverty as a sole parent student to vindicate fraudulent claims to WINZ. Her eventual replacement, Marama Davidson played rear-guard soon after Turei’s resignation (at a South Auckland rally attended by both) saying, “… the party would raise benefits by 20 percent – including student allowances and all core living payments – if elected.”2

But back to 2018.

“The agreement between Labour and the Greens … commits the Government to overhaul the welfare system with the aim of lifting families out of poverty and ensuring that ‘everyone has a standard of living … that enables them to live in dignity and participate in their communities’.”3

No kudos for originality here. This is exactly the sentiment expressed by the 1972 Royal Commission on Social Security. That commission gave us the DPB, which was followed by an explosion in unmarried births (but wasn’t enough for Turei to live on.)

Now in government, albeit with a muddled mandate, Labour has a long list of Pipers to pay beyond just the Greens: they are beneficiary advocates, unionists, academics, and even government agencies like the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, all of whom have sought benefit reforms along the following lines:

More

Suicide patterns vary dramatically

The following graph (P60) depicts the worst of statistics - suicide among young people. The ethnic/age information is new to me however and is exercising my brain. The peak for Maori suicide is much younger than for European. And the differences are inverse and large before and after age 16. I understand that some suicides are due to broken relationships. Does the variation reflect the tendency for Maori and Pacific youngsters to enter intimate relationships earlier? What else is behind these variances? (Bearing in mind they span 14 years so may mask differences between what was happening in 2002 compared to 2016).

#MeTooNZ getting out of control

Just a few weeks ago I posted about the vigilantism of #MeToo arriving in NZ

Today's new-format trash-tabloid DomPost has its front page emblazoned with:

Doctor accused of sex with patients

Note that the on-line headline has been significantly modified to, "Wellington Doctor accused of having sexual relationships with women patients".

One of them even became his wife!!

This 'offending' has occurred over three decades and involves 3 women and the estranged wife.

The main complainant (not the wife) admits she entered into a consensual sexual albeit brief relationship with the apparently very popular doctor.

He pursues  patients he finds attractive. Buys them gifts, takes them on trips, buys them dinner. Not once is there any mention that he forced himself on one of them.

The Medical Council are investigating because it is unethical for doctors to enter into sexual relationships with patients.

Main complainant says she is not vindictive but doesn't think he is fit to practice. Well hello? He isn't practicing.

He is 64 as is the main complainant.

Clearly this is a publicity piece to draw out any other 'victims'.

Because it serves no other purpose.

The doctor with poor judgment sounds like a hopeless romantic looking for love in all the wrong places.

How far is this witch hunt going to go?

What is actually happening with crime rates

We are told that the rising imprisonment rate and population is mostly about sentencing policy because crime rates are falling.

That is only partially true.

For instance, as of  March 2017:

-violent crime in public places had decreased 17% since June 2011

but...

-violent crime in dwellings had increased 9% since June 2011

Overall the violent crime rate hit a low point in June 2014 and has climbed since.

The general crime rate bottomed in September 2015 and reverted to growth. Youth crime hit its lowest rate in June 2015 and then started to increase.

Is there any update on March 2017, now over a year ago?

Published by the Police in February 2018, some data up to December 2017 shows overall 'victimisations' were down 1% from the previous 12 months:


- Theft victimisations reduced by 0.5% compared with the previous 12 months

- Burglary victimisations decreased by 2.9% compared with the previous 12 months

- Assault victimisations decreased by 0.4% compared with the previous 12 months

But...

- Serious assaults resulting in injury increased by 12.4% compared with the previous 12 months

Overall this results in a rather flat trend line hiding the fact that violence is worsening (the two spikes are Jan 2017 and Jan 2018 - undoubtedly holiday family violence):

But the police say, "New Zealand is a safe place to live", because "...three quarters of New Zealanders reported no victimisation in the previous 12 months."

I am relieved to be among the 75 percent.

But kudos to the police for improving their statistical tools and making them publicly available.

Have a play. There are numerous categories which once clicked on and loaded can then be examined further by district, trend, demographics etc.

Theodore Dalrymple (Anthony Daniels)

I am a huge fan. This week I have re-read Life at the Bottom which gave me cause to check my link to Dalrymple at this blog. It was obsolete, but is now operational.

Here is a sample of his recent writing for the Spectator:

"The furore over the parole granted to John Worboys, the rapist taxi driver, misses the point entirely — that the system of parole is disgraceful in theory and irredeemably unworkable in practice. The only thing that it is good for is the employment of large numbers of officials engaged in pointless or fatuous tasks who might other-wise be unemployed.
The system is predicated on the ability of experts to predict the future conduct of convicted prisoners. Will they or will they not repeat their crimes if let out early?"

There is nobody I read who makes me think more, and sometimes, laugh more.

Having spent over two years working with a prisoner towards parole I utterly understand the sense in Dalrymple's view. The arbitrariness of whether or not a prisoner will walk free is unacceptable.

A man is to be punished for what he has done beyond reasonable doubt, not for what some questionnaire or bogus calculation says he has a 70 per cent chance of doing at some time in the future.

But there is also a seductive humanity to monitoring how prisoners progress through the system and allowing earlier release. Some actually improve in their self-awareness and mature, though I doubt it's a majority. At the same time Dalrymple (having been a prison psychiatrist) fully comprehends some prisoner's surprising and skillful capacity to 'play the game'.

Labour can't fulfil its promises

What it sounds like when Labour realizes it can't afford its promises:

Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni has defended the Government's slowly-but-surely approach to welfare reform, saying it is like to trying to turn a jumbo jet in mid-air.
"[The Ministry of Social Development] is a huge machine. It's like this massive jumbo jet that's been set on a certain direction for the last nine years," she told Newshub Nation.
"To expect me to able to put the brake on mid-air and turn that jumbo jet around immediately is a little bit unreasonable."

How lame. I've been aboard a jumbo jet on the way to Japan when the pilot's window began to develop a bubble. I can tell you it is very easy to immediately turn a jumbo jet around mid-air and head back to its departure point if need be.

I see she also mucked her numbers up - quite significantly. A sign of not being on top of her portfolio.

How many benefit fraud accusations are false?

MSD in the gun again, this time for cutting a benefit after an apparently false dob-in was made. MSD spokeswoman (yes, RNZ actually used the gender-specific term) ....

Ms Read said the ministry gets up to 15,000 claims of benefit fraud a year through its dedicated tip-off line, and each one has to be investigated.
The ministry was not able to immediately provide figures about how many claims turn out to be false.

RNZ could have made an attempt to get a ball park number itself.

Thousands it would seem.

According to the 2016/17 Annual Report just under 6,000 cases of suspected fraud were investigated.

"Cases are investigated only when allegations have been made and there is sound information indicating that fraud may be present."

$48,054,000 was spent investigating fraud and over-payments. $48 million.

It's hardly surprising that a majority of accusations are false. There is a sizable group in society who manipulate the benefit and justice systems to their own ends. Sometimes successfully when it comes down to 'he said, she said' scenarios.

The wonderful beneficence of social security turned malignant.

My best advice to anyone concerned about becoming an 'victim' of the benefit or justice system is to avoid them at all costs.

Replacement for commonsense

The government has developed what it calls a Child Impact Assessment Tool. Essentially it's a template for testing any policy for its effect on children and seems to have been developed at the behest of the United Nations.

Having waded through it, including the separate section on possible 'differential' impacts on Maori children, I'm left with the one overwhelming response - it's a replacement for commonsense.

Sorry, no, I have another.

It is no wonder governments become so sprawling when you consider the hours and man power it took to devise this, and the hours and man power it will take to administer it.

MSD throws in the towel

An announcement appeared at the MSD website that a Declaration of Seasonal Tasman Labour Shortage was being made on April 5.

A declaration of a labour shortage from the very agency charged with getting the unemployed into jobs? That must mean the local unemployment rate is close to zero.

Actually it's 3.5%

But there are no beneficiaries left in the region?

Actually there were 924 "work-ready jobseekers" in February. Not to mention a few hundred more in nearby Blenheim, Westport and Greymouth.

The natural question question to ask is, why, then, is there a shortage? But the answer to that lies in the incapacity of beneficiaries to provide the required quality and consistency of work required.

The real question is why the announcement?

The answer appears at the very end of the statement, by which time most will have ceased reading.

"By declaring a labour shortage in Tasman, people from overseas with visitor visas can apply for a Variation of Conditions, which allows them to work through the declaration period."

MSD giving up and admitting that local growers want overseas pickers in preference to beneficiaries.

Updating artist blog

Still playing catch up after the year spent renovating full-time.

Have just updated my artist blog with a few newer works.

Here's one, a still-life in oil with palette knife:

And this gorgeous Rottie pup:

Turning the tide on compulsory over-parenting

More in from yesterday's contributor, to whom I am most grateful.

Source

Utah governor signs law legalizing ‘free-range parenting’
Lindsay Whitehurst

SALT LAKE CITY — So-called free-range parenting will soon be the law of the land in Utah after the governor signed what appears to be the country’s first measure to formally legalize allowing kids to do things on their own to foster self-sufficiency.

The bill, which Gov. Gary Herbert announced Friday that he’d signed, specifies that it isn’t neglectful to let kids do things alone like travel to school, explore a playground or stay in the car. The law takes effect May 8.

Utah’s law is the first in the country, said Lenore Skenazy, who coined the term free-range parent. A records search by the National Conference of State Legislatures didn’t turn up any similar legislation in other states.

Utah lawmakers said they were prompted to pass the law after seeing other states where parents had been investigated and in some cases had their children temporarily removed when people reported seeing kids playing basketball in their yards or walking to school alone.

Headline-grabbing cases have included a Maryland couple investigated after allowing their 10- and-6-year-old children to walk home alone from a park in 2015.

Republican Sen. Lincoln Fillmore of South Jordan has said allowing kids to try things alone helps prepare them for the future, though some have raised concerns the law could be used as defenses in child-abuse cases if not carefully deployed.

The law states the child must be mature enough to handle those things but leaves the age purposely open-ended so police and prosecutors can work on a case-by-case basis, Fillmore has said.

Skenazy, who wrote the book “Free Range Kids” after writing about letting her 9-year-old ride the New York City subway alone, has said the law is a good way to reassure parents who might be nervous about their parenting decisions.

Graph of the Day

A reader sent me the following graph:

As he comments, "No surprise".

Yet the media witter on and on about the gender earnings gap.

Why more prisons are needed

Source

Two things are happening:

1/ Some inmates released on parole commit serious, even fatal, crimes
2/ Some inmates who have the potential to rehabilitate are kept in prison longer than necessary

But if Labour doesn't want to build more prisons they will have to address the legislation that's driving up numbers. After all, it was passed under a Labour government.

The Rainbow Tick

Ever heard of The Rainbow Tick? I came across it at the Human Rights Commission website:

The Rainbow Tick programme allows businesses and organisations to understand what they are doing well in regard to their Rainbow personnel, what they need to improve, and how to do this. Through the help of the Rainbow Tick a manager can derive the best from an employee by being a good employer.
Getting the Rainbow Tick also allows us to show our employees and all New Zealand that we are a progressive, inclusive and dynamic organisation that reflects the community that we serve.
We are really proud and excited to be recognised for our efforts as a welcoming and inclusive work place and urge other organisations to consider doing the same. 

Nothing of particular interest here then. Just PC back-patting. But wait:

 Other organisations and businesses who have already achieved the Tick include: Westpac, ASB, Fletcher Building, Coco-Cola Amatil, KPMG, Microsoft, PWC, Simpson Grierson, AUT, Sovereign, Publicis Loyalty, Sky City, Repromed and Russel McVeagh.

That last one rings a bell. They certainly have been inclusive.

On a serious note, is it any wonder that the Human Rights Commission cannot hear cases and complaints because they simply don't have the resources? Apparently they are only investigating 'urgent' complaints currently. Perhaps some prioritization is in order.

Michael Cullen can't be trusted

A report in today's DomPost  details Michael Cullen's thinking as he embarks on his chairmanship of the Tax Working Group. The title alone, Cullen: Taxes could change bad behaviours is enough to send a shiver down your spine. But so should this:

Cullen said taxes were normally higher in richer countries than in poorer ones and said New Zealand's tax system did less, compared to most in the OECD, to redistribute money from the rich to the poor.

Really?

According to latest OECD data (published 2017) NZ has the highest percentage cash transfer to the lowest quintile:

And NZ rates above the OECD average in how much of its GDP is turned into public social spending to the working-age population:

New Zealand doesn't do so much universalism but it certainly rates right up there when it comes to redistributing money "from the rich to the poor".

A very dodgy start from Cullen.

Vigilantism reaches NZ

A US writer adequately states the problem:

"What counts as sexual harassment? Good question. Men accused of boorish gestures or vulgar remarks face the same disgrace as outright rapists. And never mind if the accusations lack proof and the accusers remain anonymous."

Now we have our own #metoo campaign headed by journalist Ali Mau who yesterday told Mark Sainsbury that her "investigation" would be naming and shaming. "I'm coming for you," said the fearless Mau.

I have one word. Vigilantism.

Who will define the deed(s) and the perpetrator? What legislative framework will they work under? Who decides whether hurt to the families of perpetrators is justified? Who calculates an acceptable degree of collateral damage? Who sets the standard of proof to be met by accusers?

The potential for this exercise to snowball wildly out of control is significant.

One year on

A year on. Who'd have thought it'd take so long. But how much we have learned. Probably the most educative year of my entire life. Would I recommend it? Not if making money is the goal.


Some before and after shots:

More

Bravo Bryce

Bryce Wilkinson from the New Zealand Initiative writes:

When I was a lad, Treasury was a home for bean counters. Many a fine public servant did an accounting degree part-time at evening classes at Vic. Full-time study was unaffordable; they needed a day job for income.

They knew their day job. It was to run a surgical eye over departmental spending proposals. Noes were more satisfying than Ayes. Noes could help a minister of finance keep the budget healthy. Noes saved ‘the country’ money.

The proportion of Noes that won the day in Cabinet was a measure of one’s batting average.

They wrote short, incisive reports with recommendations based on a few well-chosen facts, knowledge, and experience. Cabinet deadlines were tight. A succinct one-page report was good. It would be read. A longer one might not be.

Looking back, one has to feel sorry for these investigating officers. The poor chaps never had a chance in these short reports to muse about such lofty matters as intergenerational wellbeing.

Happily, today’s Treasury is not so constrained by cold-hearted value-for-money considerations. Your and my wellbeing and that of our children and their future children are ever closer to its throbbing heart.

This week it added to the warming embrace by releasing four discussion documents on its wellbeing framework. Treasury wants “government agencies to be more cohesive so public policy on wellbeing, spending and other government interventions is aligned with improving intergenerational wellbeing”.

At long last the public service will overcome its silo tendencies. We look forward to seeing agencies graciously deferring to each other: “No, please cut our budget to help you expand yours, what you are doing is more important for intergenerational wellbeing”.

The Treasury old-timers probably never conceived that this might be possible.  One can almost imagine them applauding in unison from their graves.

It is comforting to know that the public service will be focusing on how much you want to cut back on your spending to bequeath more to the next generation. You won’t need to think about that for yourself as much.

Perhaps the day will come when the sign outside Treasury, coined from a Christchurch art exhibit, reads: The House of Wellbeing, Resilience and Sustainability: All Welcome, bar Bean Counters.

Renovation completed

It seems a life time ago (yet only a year) when I asked readers whether I should keep the fireplace in our recently purchased renovation property:



We didn't.

Here is how the room looks today with brand new bay window featuring original leadlights, additional ceiling batons ...

...and en suite:

Why child poverty targets make no sense

Published in NBR, Friday, Feb 9, but behind a paywall:

Why child poverty targets make no sense

The new coalition government intends to set targets to reduce the proportion of children living in low income homes, and impose them on future governments. It's feel-good stuff from a fledgling Prime Minister who's made fighting child poverty her own personal crusade.

It's feel-good but definitely fraught, and probably futile and foolish. Let me explain by way of example.

My family is 2,2 (two adults, two dependents). That's the coding description used in the Household Incomes Report, the official  source of child poverty statistics.

For argument's sake, our income could be $100,000.  Because, according to the report, "... a larger household needs more income than a smaller household for the two households to have similar standards of living... " a process called equivalisation is applied. That means  $100,000 is scaled down to $50,000 for comparative data purposes.

Equivalised incomes provide the median from which thresholds are set. Children in poverty are usually deemed to live in households with incomes under the 60 percent threshold of the equivalised median.

Your eyes are glazing over.

But the point to make is that in 2017 our 2,2 family reduced to a 2,1 group after 1 left home to study in Dunedin. Immediately we got 'richer' due to the equivalisation process artificially bumping up our income.

In fact we got 'poorer' because 1 in Dunedin required more financial support than when part of our 'official' household.

The current statistical measurement does not capture what is actually happening in our household. We apparently got richer but actually got poorer. Of course this is just a one-off example of how surveyed statistics can't accurately measure what is happening in individual households.

At the macro level, let me pose a circumstance whereby children in poverty could also apparently get 'richer'.

The ageing population and reducing home ownership means that increasingly, more elderly will rely solely on Super. That means more will be poorer. As they move into statistical ranks of poverty, fewer children can occupy those ranks (remembering all measured poverty in New Zealand is relative).

The Household Incomes Report - a meticulous and honest piece of work -  highlights how various circumstances can throw up misleading outcomes:

"...in times of good economic growth with rising real wages, rising employment and reducing unemployment, median income (and therefore the poverty lines which are simply a proportion of the median) can rise more quickly than the incomes in the lower parts of the income distribution. In these circumstances a REL measure would report increasing poverty even if those in low-income households were experiencing real income growth.

This counter-intuitive result was observed in Ireland in the 1990s: the poor became ‘richer’ in real terms, but because the income growth of the middle income households was even greater, poverty rates grew considerably as measured using a REL threshold. This also happened for New Zealand from 1998 to 2004, albeit on a more modest scale.

The reverse is also possible. It was observed in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in the early 1990s when each of these nations experienced large falls in national income. Real incomes fell, but poverty was reported as declining as measured by a REL approach as a result of the falling median and therefore the lowering poverty thresholds."

Under this scenario, a government which drove the local economy into recession could still argue it had met its child poverty reduction targets!

Then we have another problem. The statistics apply in any given year (and are always lagging). But incomes are very fluid. Especially for the contracted and self-employed. Also, parental relationships and living arrangements change more frequently than in the past. A child recorded in poverty in 2017 might not be in 2018. The economic fluidity of parents in New Zealand is much greater than in lesser economically developed countries. Poverty is not generally persistent.

The minefield that is measuring and setting poverty reduction targets has already been exposed. The United Kingdom tried and failed. Aware of this, the National government nevertheless kept a close eye on every available social indicator. Anyone who doubts this should refer to the work of the Ministerial Committee on Poverty (https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/ministerial-committee-poverty).

They concluded that a small group of children were in persistent and chronic poverty. They targeted efforts at this group (which in part explains their support for whanau ora). For example the strongest correlate for child poverty is welfare dependence. A goal of reducing the number of children in benefit-dependent households was set as part of the Better Public Service goals. Real progress had been made seeing a reduction of 61,000 between 2011 and 2017, yet Labour has scrapped the goals.

Most voters didn't have a clue what English was up to. But he had studied the problem for decades.

New kid in town hasn't had the time or experience to draw conclusions vital to effective action.

Re-resorting to hiked income redistribution to lift children above artificial and arbitrary thresholds is senseless.

Worse, there is a very real prospect of the deep-seated problems connected with parental state dependency - diminished or relinquished responsibility for their own children -  will worsen.

Quote of the Day

Paul Meredith writes, "Sorrenson (Ngata et al.1986, 258) cites a letter from Sir Peter Buck to Eric Ramsden who states:

'I am with you as an advocate for miscegenation. It is an inevitable process which has taken place down the ages and the blending of the two races into New Zealand citizenship should do away ultimately with the bickering between pakeha and Maori.' "

Source

Some positive poverty news

There is NZ research from the SOFIE (now discontinued) data that mirrors the findings below recently published by the University of Queensland. It's out of step with the leftist discourse so little is heard about it:

Poverty is not a life sentence in Australia
January 24, 2018, University of Queensland

"Researchers say almost half of Australian families tracked in a 30-year study have experienced poverty at least once.


University of Queensland researcher Emeritus Professor Jake Najman said the study found little evidence of a persistent 'underclass,' suggesting that for many families poverty was a transient stage in life.

"It was common for families to move in and out of hardship, due to a change of circumstances such as loss of employment or marital breakdown."

"However, there was evidence of substantial economic mobility – the ability of a family or individual to improve (or experience a decline) in their economic status – both within a single generation and across generations."

Emeritus Professor Najman said it was not surprising those most likely to suffer poverty were single mothers, the unemployed and aged pensioners.

"The study suggested that poverty in Australia could be split into two groups – a relatively small group who experience chronic, long-term poverty and a much larger group who experience shorter periods of hardship."

"Interestingly, adversity experienced early in the child's life course does not independently predict poverty when the child reaches adulthood. "

He said that meant those who experienced high levels of poverty and/or adversity in early childhood rarely went on to experience persistent poverty and adversity such as unemployment as adults, and other factors were more likely to lead to adult poverty.

The study of more than 2000 Brisbane families measured family income when the child was born, and at five, 14, 21 and 30 years.

Emeritus Professor Najman said future research would investigate the health and behavioural consequences of the different forms of poverty."

First child poverty reduction target

"Reduce the proportion of children in low income households (before housing costs) from roughly 15 per cent of all children to 5 percent. This reduces the number by more than half from 160,000 to 60,000."

The threshold used to measure the proportion below is the median (the middle whereupon half fall below and half fall above).

The next  measure, which establishes "low income",  is arbitrary. It might be 50% of the median or - most commonly used internationally -  60% of the median.

The easiest way to reduce the proportion of children from "15 to 5 percent" is to lower the median.

With Labour's new workplace policies, that's not an unrealistic prospect.

This might also be naturally achieved with an ageing population who have increasingly not owned their own homes and will rely solely on Super.

If more childless families  are poorer then the child poverty problem will reduce.

This target is bunkum.

Having children makes you poor

Clearly children are a cost on a household economy but my statement goes beyond that.

What most people don't appreciate is how the government measures household income and the effect  the presence of children has on the result.

It's called equivalisation.

It's the application of a formula to adjust income for the number of household members.

Here is the relevant table from last year's report:

"The first row of figures identifies the family or household type: (1,2) is a one adult, two child household, and so on. The second row gives the values of the equivalence ratios used. The body of the table indicates, for example, that a (2,2) household needs around $28,000 to have the same purchasing power as a (1,1) household with an income of around $18,000. Each has an equivalised income of $13,000 (or, to put it another way, each household has an income of $13,000 per equivalent adult). "

The way child poverty is measured is derived from the median equivalised household income.

So from the example a 2 adult, 2 children household has their income more than halved before it is entered into the calculation.

So we have this crazy conundrum.

The mere fact of having children drives households into 'poverty'. Or the way poverty is measured creates a greater problem than might otherwise present.

Heather Du Plessis - oxygen for the suffocating

Heather du Plessis-Allan is now the morning talk host at Wellington NewstalkZB.

I've never understood why the station doesn't just can the Wellington programme and let Leighton Smith blast us. But demand for localism  prevailed. This combined with a moderate host stopped me listening.

Now Heather, I am going to disagree with plenty of times but at least she takes a position with conviction. After years of not participating I was compelled to ring and express a view this week.

At only 33 she has clearly avoided the offence and victimhood virus most prevalent and contagious  in young adulthood.

If you are in Wellington - or the NewstalkZB listening area -  I can commend her to you.

Winston picking winners

Readers know I love my horse racing. The industry has been screaming for more government support because that's why it's so much healthier in Australia (and hurting our industry in the process).

Today Racing Minister Winston Peters apparently promised an all weather track at the cost of $10 million (double it for starters) and either promised or called for tax breaks because the industry (breeding in particular) brings in so much money.

If tax breaks can make one industry stronger, then they can make any industry stronger.

Government picking winners is a recipe for corruption and injustice. We cannot expect New Zealanders who have not a skerrick of interest in the racing industry to disproportionately pay taxes to advance it.

Tax breaks are not subsidies if they are applied universally. Reduce tax period.

You are a guardian of public money Winston. Not a private investor.

On the upside, I am looking forward to our Prime anti-poverty crusader getting it in the neck today over her government's support for "rich pricks".

Interesting silence

Latest benefit statistics show year-on-year decreases.

Should National or Labour take credit for this?

Quarterly benefit data release typically elicits party pressers.

No mention in the media so neither finds a political gain to shout about.

National could justifiably claim credit. Maybe still knocked off for summer.

Make-work Mistakes

Treasury has made a cock-up.

Some sort of coding error related to the accommodation supplement has meant their calculations about the reduction in child poverty are incorrect.

So what? They are probably going to be incorrect anyway because there are so many variables at play. What is going to happen in the housing market for instance. How potential parents are going to react to the $3,000 baby bonus. How unemployment trends, etc etc.

But the number of well-paid boffins studying poverty plebs will swell as Treasury seeks to review and understand where it went wrong.

It's an absurdity.

We aren't all feminist drones

Readers know I am into horses. My last 5 percenter, Everything, did me proud.

My new 5 percenter, Jaktar, is also looking good.

Listening to Radio Trackside's Des Coppins interveiwing another syndicate manager today, I laughed out loud.

One guy has 1 share and another 99 women have the others. The woman 'manager' suggested they call the syndicate Witches of  Westview. The male was hesitant. What if some members took offence at being called "witch"? The woman manager responded, if they take offence, they aren't the sort of women we want in the syndicate.

Me too.

The Hollywood witch-hunt

Why am I so agitated by the campaign against sexual harassment building a head of steam in Hollywood, and elsewhere?

The question isn't a mere opener to a post. I put it to myself in order to write this.

I get some easy answers, for instance, I don't like any collectivism at all.

1/ Individuals should fight their our own battles and 2/ Aspersions should not be cast on non-offenders based on the class they occupy, for instance, all men are not rapists.

But it goes further.

Why are these participating women so hellbent on being victims? Hurt is a private matter for me, rationalised and resolved (if ever) at a personal level. (If ever) is a big deal. Maybe historical hurts should be left in the past, in context, and with regard to one's own contribution to the circumstances.

Contribution? But each and every accuser is a non-contributing angel... surely? If you believe that then you haven't lived.

But above all, feminism - which represented a longing for greater freedom when I was a teenager - has evolved into a grotesque PC witch hunt hellbent on robbing freedom from the rightly or wrongly accused. Contextual 'truth' is irrelevant.

If there is an individual who is exploiting and abusing you, walk away. If you are letting them, to further your own interests, then you are a collaborator. Don't sanctify your capitulation retrospectively.

Distorted self regard

Reacting to the passing of Jim Anderton, Jacinda Ardern waxed lyrical about how he "gave 40 years service to New Zealand."

Up a ladder painting, I responded to nobody in particular, "He didn't 'give' it. He was paid, quite handsomely."

The notion that public service employees are somehow self-sacrificing needs crushing.

They occupy some of the best paid and most secure jobs to be found.

Politicians exist in a place of privilege.

And it's a long way from up my ladder, or amongst the cat-shit under the renovation house, or sweltering in the attic. Places I have enjoyed this year 'hoping' to earn a living.

We have provided work for numerous people and made a significant contribution to the economy.

But in the private sector none blathers on about giving service to the country. Neither should they.

Shock, horror, UNICEF says something positive about NZ

It's true. For once UNICEF isn't banging on about child poverty levels in New Zealand. Apparently,

"Babies born in New Zealand have access to high levels of care, education and medical assistance, which is reflected in their long life-spans."

Yet in June 2017 they were saying:

 New Zealand has performed poorly in a global report card on children’s well-being, and Kiwi kids will continue to miss out unless there is a massive upheaval in how children’s best interests are served, says child rights organisation UNICEF NZ.

The first statement is accurate. The second is political.

Welcome to 2018, a year when 'feelings' will rule over facts.

"Let's Undo This"

Signing up to a social media campaign isn't something I've ever done before. I did so because it's one way I can register may protest at the new government.

National policies leave a lot to be desired but they were  better than Labour's.

It'd be satisfying to hear the numbers responding to this campaign reported in the media. That might happen if the numbers are very high.

And it's a well put together site.

Update on sole parent economic situation

An interesting graph from the Briefing to Incoming Social Development Minister:

After the In Work tax credit came in the gap between being on a benefit and working for the minimum wage opened up.

This has undoubtedly contributed to the fall in the number of benefit-dependent sole parents. But anti-child poverty activists want the in work tax credit paid to all beneficiaries. This will be a sticky issue for the new government. Their families package (especially the payment for babies aged 0-2) will effectively close the gap anyway.

Another interesting fact from the Briefing. Maori represent 15% of the population but "48 percent of Sole Parent Support recipients."

Here's a table from my own 2008 paper, Maori and Welfare:

It would appear the employment status of Maori sole parents is not improving as quickly as the general population.

A question remains that I have not had time to properly research. While the number of sole parent support recipients continues to drop...

... it must be remembered that many are now moved onto jobseeker support as their youngest child reaches 14. There may also be some migration onto the supported living benefit positively affecting the drop. The Briefing stresses that "The proportion of clients with mental health conditions has been growing substantially over time."

Reckless changes to benefit system will hurt children

Myself and Muriel Newman explain how in this week's NZCPR lead articles.

The first part of my piece, which concerns the removal of the requirement to name the father of a child supported by a benefit,  has mostly been stated already at this site but the second was something I had been intending to blog about but hadn't:

"But wait – there’s more.

This is just one of the changes this far-Left government intends to make. They also want to scrap other sanctions (benefit cuts) such as those imposed for failing a drugs test or for failing to keep Work and Income appointments. It won’t surprise if they also scrap sanctions that motivated young parents to attend parenting and budgeting courses, and enrol their child with a local GP.

Many of the sanctions loathed by the Left merely imitate the obligations that the paid workforce experience. Now taxpayers will be expected to meet obligations beneficiaries don’t have to and pay for the beneficiary’s ‘privilege’.

This topsy-turvy ‘world view’ was recently exemplified when Catriona McLennan, a well-meaning lawyer and advocate for the Child Poverty Action Group was heard extolling the generosity and kindness of Micky Savage’s original benefit system, and how New Zealand needs to return to that inclusiveness.

What a shock it would be for a young single mother of today to find, under the 1938 social security provisions, nobody was interested in whether she named the father of their child or not: because there was no benefit for single mothers. At best, a deserted wife could apply for a Widow’s Benefit but eligibility rested on her having been married and having sought financial support from the father through the courts.

It’s almost laughable when today’s beneficiary advocates complain about National’s ‘harshness’.

They are out of touch with reality. But they plan to drive policy made by a government with the same problem."

Life on a benefit drives to crime

A man was let off a charge of stealing around $180 worth of groceries because he said that life on a benefit is hard.

This poses a number of questions for me.

Why has this petty crime made headlines?

Is there still a moral discomfit about beneficiaries biting the hand that feeds?

Would someone on the minimum wage who claimed financial difficulty be let off?

If life on a benefit is hard, isn't  the better reaction to try and get off it?

Will this dismissal of a crime encourage more people to put up a defence of "life on a benefit is hard"?

Why didn't the offender go to a foodbank?

National makes a valid objection, but timidly

The student allowance - which was paid at the same rate as the unemployment benefit - is about to increase by $50 per week.

There is a suggestion from National that, along with the first year free tertiary education, an incentive will present for some to swap 'benefits' without a genuine motivation to study. Well, I dressed that up nicely, as did the spokesperson Paul Goldsmith.

He was being interviewed by a disbelieving Guyon Espiner who said this was a most cynical view.

If it had been me I'd have conceded the point, but maintained that we are dealing with Labour's idealistic and naive view. The truth lies somewhere in  between.

In the past data showed that when the invalid benefit was paid at a higher rate than the sickness benefit there was definite migration to the former.

Mr Goldsmith might also have talked about the pressure that his government had put on work-capable people to find jobs. A year's break from that, along with a $2,600 bonus might be very appealing.

Another angle

Here's a letter that appeared in today's Dompost. I am unable to find the piece it responds to. Odd. But it does highlight another unintended consequence that removing sanctions for not naming fathers will bring:

There's a surprise

Encouraging more adoption?

I doubt this guy is a good fit for a feminist government.

The ghost of Metiria and more lies

She may as well have stayed. In addition to scrapping the legal requirement to name fathers or face a penalty...

As part of a major welfare system overhaul agreed with the Greens, the government would remove other excessive sanctions and ensure people could access what they were entitled to.

And here is Carmel Sepuloni propagating more lies. Lies are OK on the Left.  And when the media reporting are also Left, they enable them.

 Ms Sepuloni said some parents had good reason for not naming the other parent.
"The most common reason for not naming the parent was often family-violence related and so, keeping that mind, it's almost like you're doubly punishing these women and their children. So, we're not going to allow that to continue."

Here is what the Work and Income manual says:

 Your benefit payments may be reduced if you don’t legally identify the other parent or apply for Child Support. In some situations you may not need to do this, for example if you or your child would be at risk of violence. Work and Income can tell you more about this.

There is already an exception to the rule for cases of violence.

So what is the real reason for the change? It's the imposition of  radical feminism whereby women's rights are elevated above children's....with the added bonus of screwing the taxpayer.

Can't disagree with any of this

Arrived in my inbox. I didn't steal it.

From The NATIONAL BUSINESS REVIEW October 27th 2017

The Limits of Cleverness versus Capitalism

Hidesight  -  Rodney Hide

I have concluded our new prime minister Jacinda Ardern is clever stupid.
She's quick, has good analytical skills and communicates well. There's no doubt she's clever.
    But she's stupid on how the world works and lacks thought-through principles and values. She bobs along on feelings and sounding good and thereby perfectly in tune with a media that emotes rather than reports and analyses.
    By her own account she grew up Mormon but jumped to socialism, becoming president of the International Union of Socialist Youth. She substituted one whacky religion for another. Her work experience is university and Parliament, first as a Labour Party staffer, then as an MP.
    She's driven by belief, not understanding. She can't argue ideas and must dismiss her opponents as uncaring or not yet enlightened. The shortcoming in opposing ideas is not the ideas themselves but the moral deficiency of those expressing them.
    When asked if capitalism had failed low-income New Zealanders, the prime minister-designate said: "If you have hundreds of thousands of children living in homes without enough to survive, that's a blatant failure. What else could could you describe it as?"
    "Hundreds of thousands of children living in homes without enough to survive." That  means "hundreds of thousands of children" dying because of material want. It's nonsense. There would be UN relief missions and international popstars having concerts to aid New Zealand were her claim true.
It isn't.
    It's part of the media-manufactured Jacindamania that such rubbish claims are passed over. She cares, that's enough. It's as if her nonsensical hyperbole underscores the extent of her caring. "Yes, she might have been out by a few hundred children, and yes, they're not exactly not surviving, but her heart is in the right place."
    The problem of poor and neglected children is not the fault of capitalism but of welfarism.  Generations of handouts have robbed too many of any sense of personal responsibility even for the  care and upbringing of their own children.
     It's perfectly respectable now not to provide for yourself, nor house your family, nor commit in any way to your partner in child-making and to have children without the ability to provide or care  or them.
    It's not your fault. You're a victim. Capitalism has failed.
    Ms Ardern's blinkered, if not blind, view of the world sees her advocating more of the policies causing the very problems concerning her rather than treating the cause.
    No facts, no analysis, no experience would shift her view. Her socialism is her religion.
    I'm a white, privileged male. I would say all of the above, wouldn't I ? I'm threatened by a female in charge and fear that my greedy exploitation of the poor is at an end. There, I dismissed my argument myself to save her supporters the effort.

Labour happy for taxpayers to be "rorted"

Radio news has Carmel Sepuloni, Minister for Social Development, saying she will get rid of the penalty for not naming fathers of children who are supported by benefits. We knew it was coming and new information indicates NZ First is going to support the change.

To reiterate on past posts, one of the major reasons mothers refuse to name fathers is to help them dodge child support.

In the past Labour has acknowledged this.

From parliament, 2004:

Heather Roy: When will he admit that this is just a rort so that fathers can dodge child support, and why should taxpayers always have to pick up the bill?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is a rort, and I have said time and time again in this Parliament that fathers must front up to their obligations, and we will make sure they do, as much as we can.

Maharey meant it and he increased the penalty in an effort to reduce the rort.

But today Labour  don't care what is costs the taxpayers. And apparently they don't care about children being denied their father's name on their birth certificate.

Sepuloni will argue that the penalty isn't working. However the numbers who incur a section 70a penalty have fallen. In 2004 there were 19,443.

Last year the number had fallen to 13,616.

What's in a word

It is infrequently that I come across an unknown word. Today however I was reading some hullabaloo (on both sides) about NZ sinking into the shadows of far right influence.An opinion piece was published by the Washington Post, "How the far right is poisoning New Zealand, " and duly responded to by Tim Watkin at RNZ.

Here's the sentence, from the first piece, containing the word:

"Appealing to ethnically homogenous, overwhelmingly cisgender male voters with limited education and economic prospects who feel they’re being left behind in a changing world is nothing new for the far right."

Cisgender. I had to google it.

 Cisgender is a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth. Cisgender may also be defined as those who have "a gender identity or perform a gender role society considers appropriate for one's sex". Wikipedia

No surprises in a politically correct world that a new label has been attached to a group to categorise and explain with reference and respect to anyone who falls outside of it.

My interest is, am I the only one who wasn't aware of this term? Am I such a dinosaur? You see I think my ignorance of this word is just part and parcel of my whole ignorance about how to really solve problems.

In fact I can't even see the problem a lot of the time. Why are we trying to fix stuff that isn't broken? Why are we obsessing about problems in advance of them actually happening?

Cisgender first appeared in 1994. Our newest generation is full of anxiety. While there have always been global scares, the rate they occur at seems to have sped up. Now our young are worrying about manmade global warming, the 'future of work', inequality, and often the very personal nature of their own sexual identity. Labeling stuff helps them try to sort it, to make sense of it. To feel logical about the illogical.

Because so often much of what they spout is illogical - not all, but even thinkers struggle with the bombardment of paranoia engulfing them.

It is totally redundant to explain to them that they have been born into a world that is more peaceful and more prosperous than any other time in history.

That's not their problem.

The Minister for Child Poverty Reduction may very well succeed

The PM has made herself Minister for Child Poverty Reduction. Symbolically a good move for her. But crucial questions have to be answered.

How will she measure child poverty? I suspect there will be an emphasis on incomes. This mirrors what the UK Labour government did in 2000 when they legislated to reduce child poverty.

But this approach was highly controversial and eventually abandoned:

After the 2010 General Election, a Coalition government, made up of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, was elected in the UK. The Coalition remained committed to the Child Poverty Act, but there was a difference in approach. As part of a larger shift away from policy measures to increase income in favor of a focus on efforts to combat what the government identified as the “drivers of poverty” (family breakdown, low levels of education, worklessness, alcohol and drug dependency, personal debt, welfare dependency, and more), the Conservative-led government began to adapt the measurements of the target itself.

This is not dissimilar to the track Bill English was on, though he also concerned himself with lifting incomes via wealth distribution. Contrary to the picture of indifference that Labour painted, National was tackling poverty and, most importantly, its causes. There was a Ministerial Committee on Poverty which produced some strong work on who was poor and why.

In 2016 a follow-up report on progress was published. Here we see emphasis on a strong economy and welfare reform, particularly regarding teen parents, a "special area of focus".

Indications from the new far left government  (compared to the Clark/Cullen administration) to date are that welfare reforms will largely be abandoned and the economy is likely to weaken due to immigration cuts, new and higher taxes, and greater government intervention in the labour market.

On that basis the PM may very well succeed in reducing relative child poverty. After all, if median household incomes go down, a smaller percentage of families will be in relative poverty as highlighted by the UK experience. While,

"....relative low income declined during the recession, absolute low income increased."

Green's persist with Turei's campaign

Thanks to a reader for highlighting this blog post from Jan Logie, now the Under-Secretary to the Minister of Justice (focussing on Domestic and Sexual Violence Issues).

Logie has stepped straight into Metiria Turei's shoes. This is exactly the message she was pushing before her fall. The message that unsettled so many New Zealanders.

Under the cloak of compassion it promotes open slather access to benefits.

Greater benefit dependency is not good, for many reasons. Being born to unknown or unnamed fathers is not good for children. These statements are generalities but they are self-evident.

People who work have obligations to their employers, and vice versa. The same should apply to a system that purports to replace income from work, at the very least.

This Labour/Greens/NZ First coalition will be a different kettle of fish from the last Labour govt

This Labour/Greens/NZ First coalition will be a different kettle of fish from the last Labour government. If you doubt that, here's a perfect example.

Just heard on Radio NZ, Ardern talking about excessive sanctions in the welfare system like the penalty for not naming the father of a child. James Shaw then chimes in backing this concern.

When Steve Maharey was Minister for Social Development he too was concerned about mothers not naming the fathers of the children - a growing trend. So he increased the existing penalty against opposition from the Greens.

Most moderate New Zealanders back a welfare system that helps people in genuine need. I accept that. But they balk against  being forced to be financial fathers to children whose biological fathers  fly the coup.

HOWEVER, here is what NZ First MP Bill Gudgeon said in the debate relating to raising the penalty in 2005:


"The Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill goes part of the way to try to rectify this problem. An increase from 5.6 percent in 1993 to 16 percent in 2004, indicates an increase in the number of liable parents who are failing to meet their responsibilities. One result is that it makes it financially harder for the custodial parent to move off the benefit, as that parent would not receive child support. The crux of the matter in sole parenting is how the children receive physical and spiritual support. Is the benefit sufficient? Will the sole parent become independent of the State? Many in today’s society would consider these questions to be quaint and old-fashioned, yet I say that we should look at where we have been, where we are, and where we are heading.

The bill increases the rate of reduction in the benefit, and does so as an incentive for sole parents to carry out certain actions so that the other parent contributes financially to the upbringing of the child. Currently, under section 70A of the Social Security Act the rate of benefit paid to the sole parent is reduced by $22 per week for each dependent child where that parent fails or refuses to identify the other parent in law, to make an application for child support, or to attend a hearing and give evidence at proceedings brought under the Child Support Act. By July 2005 additional increases in the rate of reduction will be imposed, but this decision will be reconsidered should the beneficiary meet the section 70A requirements.

Let us look at the responsibilities that we have as parliamentarians, because within the four walls of this Chamber we have the power to pass laws. But what about the citizens of this country? New Zealand First is not judgmental of people who find themselves in this situation, but it is the responsibility of Parliament to help them to become independent of the State. It is our responsibility to ensure financial support is given to the sole parent from the other partner, who, in many cases, is the father. On too many occasions we sit here and debate with each other, and among parties, about who did this and who did that, but our prime responsibility as parliamentarians is to govern so that freedom prevails and assistance is given to people in need.

This legislation will be very difficult to implement, but New Zealand First supports it."

So what will Winston do in 2018? Without NZ First support, Labour and Greens are stymied. What price is NZ First prepared to pay for power?

Trotter's advice for Ardern

Writing in today's DomPost:

A "Real Change" Government, determined to reverse the draconian policies adopted by a Ministry of Social development advised by neoliberal "experts", would call upon the experience and expertise of Sue Bradford and Metiria Turei. Those who find themselves astonished and/or offended by the thought of two such bitter opponents of this country's actuarially inspired and excessively punitive welfare system being asked to advise Jacinda's government on its root-and-branch reform should, perhaps, pause and consider just how radical (albeit from the opposite end of the political spectrum) was the "expert" advice that created it.

What were those "draconian" policies?

- funding early childhood education so single mothers could return to the workforce
- providing intensive monitoring for teenage parents
- asking parents receiving benefits to enrol their children with a GP
- increasing penalties (that Labour had introduced) for people who failed to turn up for interviews or pass drug tests
- creating a new category of benefit with no work-testing at all, the Supported Living Payment...
to name a few

Trotter seems to have forgotten that the last Labour government also tried many ways to reduce welfare numbers. The Jobs Jolt is just one example that the far left bitterly opposed.

Again a reality check is sorely required. Not only regarding Trotter's description of National's reforms but the idea that the new government would let Turei anywhere near it. Even I do not think the PM would be that stupid.

"I'm intending to stay and critique these buggers pretty hard"

So said Steven Joyce. I hope he sticks to this. 

Explanations of policy concessions are now emerging and it appears National rejected those 'bridges too far'.

NZ First is also understood to have won concessions from Labour that National balked at, including work to progress a multi-billion dollar Northland port.
The deal will also cut property sales to foreigners - another policy National balked at, warning it would send an unfortunate message to our neighbours and be in breach of trade agreements.
Immigration was also crucial to NZ First's position - National rejected whole sale cuts. concerned about a labour shortage.

The last point mirrors my major concern with the new government.

New Zealand was built on immigration. I am an immigrant. The public services in particular - Health and Corrections I can personally attest to - are heavily supported by immigrant workers. Many rural sectors cannot operate without immigrant labour.

National could not support policies that would actively hurt the economy.

Effort needs to go into explaining this, relentlessly.

Unfounded statements - hallmark of PM Ardern

If you think I have a grudge against Ardern, you are partly right. She  publicly ridiculed my research. But my problem with Ardern is mainly impersonal. It's just another battle in the war against dishonesty.

From NewstalkZB:

She's told TVNZ's Q&A programme that leaving everything to the market simply hasn't worked for workers.

"Everything" is not left to the market though.

Working For Families subsidises employers. It allows them to pay their workers less (and the childless suffer as a consequence).

Ganesh Nana, left-leaning BERL economist, was lamenting this subsidisation last week. But he never drew the correct conclusion. Abolish the state subsidies. Certainly Jacinda isn't going to.

A state-mandated minimum wage  is hardly descriptive of "leaving everything to the market". And she plans to raise it.

Huge regulation/ compliance costs are hardly "leaving everything to the market". Those costs are reflected in wage constraints. They are passed down to employees and clients.

Company tax, GST, rates, etc. all dictate costs to the labour market.

"Leaving everything to the market" is the most absurd statement.

Oh, correction. There will be a more absurd statement shortly. Money on it.