A question for bloggers using blogspot.com?
Should I wish to, I know how to delete my blog.
How can it be saved before deletion?
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Hutt Valley High and 'rights'
Cindy Kiro says the offenders at Hutt Valley High are entitled to an education and is supporting the Principal's position.
That has upset some talkback callers. I contributed the following;
As long as we blindly cling to the prevalent culture of 'rights' that has developed over the past 40 years, more disruption and dysfunction will develop.
The system of legally enshrined rights to things like social welfare benefits, electricity, education etc is ultimately troublesome because there is nowhere to draw a line. The only genuine rights that should be upheld are the rights to be free from things like violence, theft and the imposition of force.
The Hutt Valley High situation highlights this very well. The offender's right to an education is trumping the victim's right to be free from violence. That is wrong. There is no 'right' to an education. It is a privilege. And privileges can be withdrawn.
That has upset some talkback callers. I contributed the following;
As long as we blindly cling to the prevalent culture of 'rights' that has developed over the past 40 years, more disruption and dysfunction will develop.
The system of legally enshrined rights to things like social welfare benefits, electricity, education etc is ultimately troublesome because there is nowhere to draw a line. The only genuine rights that should be upheld are the rights to be free from things like violence, theft and the imposition of force.
The Hutt Valley High situation highlights this very well. The offender's right to an education is trumping the victim's right to be free from violence. That is wrong. There is no 'right' to an education. It is a privilege. And privileges can be withdrawn.
Tax cuts versus tax rebates
Here is a nice, simple commentary from the Washington Times about why tax cuts are preferable to tax rebates. That's an issue which will be integral to this year's election as National offers its alternative to Working For Families.
Remember too that whatever is economically preferable is also, in the long run, socially preferable. The Left seem to think that the goal of 'social justice' through redistribution, can be wrung out of the economy by force and the process isn't damaging.
The current government has two major aims. One is to lift economic growth. They don't like tax cuts so they need to increase the size of the workforce.
But the second aim is to put more money into young families with children with no commensurate work effort on the parent's part. Hence they naturally work less.
These two goals are antithetical through the present method of redistribution. The obvious way to achieve both is to let people keep more of their money in the first place.
Remember too that whatever is economically preferable is also, in the long run, socially preferable. The Left seem to think that the goal of 'social justice' through redistribution, can be wrung out of the economy by force and the process isn't damaging.
The current government has two major aims. One is to lift economic growth. They don't like tax cuts so they need to increase the size of the workforce.
But the second aim is to put more money into young families with children with no commensurate work effort on the parent's part. Hence they naturally work less.
These two goals are antithetical through the present method of redistribution. The obvious way to achieve both is to let people keep more of their money in the first place.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
A 'game'
This is part of a post from Stephen Frank's blog. I tried to make a comment but the anti-spam thingy told me I had the wrong word and the comment disappeared.
Politicians can not assume an interest in their messages. They must work at the emotional level, even on complex issues that should not be simplified, but must.
Sure it feels like ‘insincerity’. I hated dumbing down my speeches and letters. But if without it you will not be heard at all, where’s the choice? There are boundaries of course. The key thing for me was to ensure the communication did not become false.
People who can’t stand the fact that the floating voters in a democracy may be ignorant and uninterested should play another game. Sadly those voters may be the major important audience in an MMP election.
If Stephen hated dumbing down his speeches and letters campaigning for ACT, I would suggest worse is to come campaigning for National.
But he seems to justify this self-censorship as a "game" worth playing to attract the all-important floating voter.
I wonder if he calculated the risk of losing previously loyal followers who want more than mush? I guess no one has more than one vote and the quality of that vote is irrelevant.
Politicians can not assume an interest in their messages. They must work at the emotional level, even on complex issues that should not be simplified, but must.
Sure it feels like ‘insincerity’. I hated dumbing down my speeches and letters. But if without it you will not be heard at all, where’s the choice? There are boundaries of course. The key thing for me was to ensure the communication did not become false.
People who can’t stand the fact that the floating voters in a democracy may be ignorant and uninterested should play another game. Sadly those voters may be the major important audience in an MMP election.
If Stephen hated dumbing down his speeches and letters campaigning for ACT, I would suggest worse is to come campaigning for National.
But he seems to justify this self-censorship as a "game" worth playing to attract the all-important floating voter.
I wonder if he calculated the risk of losing previously loyal followers who want more than mush? I guess no one has more than one vote and the quality of that vote is irrelevant.
Myths about 'pioneering traditions'
This is today's Dominion Post editorial. My response follows;
Editorial: Labour's lesson in innovation
The Dominion Post | Thursday, 17 January 2008
When Christchurch musician Jimmy Mason "flicked" his three-year-old son on the ear he thought he was giving him a lesson about road safety. Don't ride your bike near the road when you're told not to. What he was actually getting was a firsthand look at the Government's anti-smacking legislation in operation.
A nearby teacher took umbrage at his actions, an off-duty policewoman rang the office and, minutes later, Mr Mason found himself surrounded by six police officers.
"They were going to arrest me and were trying to ascertain whether it was safe for the kids to go home with me," he said. "It was pretty bizarre."
In time Mr Mason may discover, like many parents before him, that there are other, more effective ways to discipline his children and keep them safe.
If the anti-smacking legislation, championed by Green MP Sue Bradford, hastens that process it will have served a useful purpose.
But just as there is no such thing as a perfect child, there is no such thing as a perfect parent. Like children, parents get tired and irritable. Like children, parents occasionally do things they later regret.
But nothing that Mr Mason did appears to warrant the attention of six police officers, at least five more than the ordinary citizen can expect to show an interest when reporting a theft, burglary or assault.
Nor do his actions appear to warrant the warning that has now been placed on his record, though that could change as a result of a police review of discrepancies between Mr Mason's story and those of witnesses.
When the anti-smacking legislation was steered through Parliament last year, Ms Bradford and her Labour allies assured the public that the law change would not criminalise parents who administered a light smack to their children.
Technically they are correct in Mr Mason's case. He has not been charged. But he has been stigmatised, something that is likely to be of almost as much concern to the Government as it is to Mr Mason.
Labour believes the initial furore over the anti-smacking legislation has died down now that it has been in place for more than six months.
But publicity about such cases revives the damaging spectre of a nanny state interfering in the private affairs of citizens.
When voters go to the polls later this year they will not recall that National voted for the legislation alongside Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party as a result of a last-minute deal with its leader John Key, but that it was Labour and its allies who pushed the bill through, just as it was Labour that took the lead in legalising prostitution, establishing civil unions, banning unhealthy food from school tuckshops and outlawing smoking in bars and restaurants.
All are initiatives that fit with New Zealand's tradition of pioneering social legislation, a tradition that began when New Zealand became the first country to give women the vote.
But politicians with long careers in mind know there is only so much innovation the public is prepared to put up with.
Labour could yet pay a price for going too far too fast.
Sir
Your editorial about the effect of Sue Bradford's anti-smacking legislation claimed the law change was one of many, "initiatives that fit with New Zealand's tradition of pioneering social legislation..."
New Zealand was by no means first to ban corporal punishment in the home. Just as it wasn't first to introduce civil unions, ban smoking in bars or legalise prostitution. Neither were we first with an old-age or widow's pension and other social security benefits that followed.
This mixed bag you describe as "innovation" is happening throughout the developed world, much of it at the behest of the United Nations and other champions of 'the state knows best.'
If New Zealanders wanted to legitimately lay claim to being pioneering front-runners, they would start by rejecting governments that regard their major role as controlling the social and financial lives of citizens. That really would be revolutionary.
Editorial: Labour's lesson in innovation
The Dominion Post | Thursday, 17 January 2008
When Christchurch musician Jimmy Mason "flicked" his three-year-old son on the ear he thought he was giving him a lesson about road safety. Don't ride your bike near the road when you're told not to. What he was actually getting was a firsthand look at the Government's anti-smacking legislation in operation.
A nearby teacher took umbrage at his actions, an off-duty policewoman rang the office and, minutes later, Mr Mason found himself surrounded by six police officers.
"They were going to arrest me and were trying to ascertain whether it was safe for the kids to go home with me," he said. "It was pretty bizarre."
In time Mr Mason may discover, like many parents before him, that there are other, more effective ways to discipline his children and keep them safe.
If the anti-smacking legislation, championed by Green MP Sue Bradford, hastens that process it will have served a useful purpose.
But just as there is no such thing as a perfect child, there is no such thing as a perfect parent. Like children, parents get tired and irritable. Like children, parents occasionally do things they later regret.
But nothing that Mr Mason did appears to warrant the attention of six police officers, at least five more than the ordinary citizen can expect to show an interest when reporting a theft, burglary or assault.
Nor do his actions appear to warrant the warning that has now been placed on his record, though that could change as a result of a police review of discrepancies between Mr Mason's story and those of witnesses.
When the anti-smacking legislation was steered through Parliament last year, Ms Bradford and her Labour allies assured the public that the law change would not criminalise parents who administered a light smack to their children.
Technically they are correct in Mr Mason's case. He has not been charged. But he has been stigmatised, something that is likely to be of almost as much concern to the Government as it is to Mr Mason.
Labour believes the initial furore over the anti-smacking legislation has died down now that it has been in place for more than six months.
But publicity about such cases revives the damaging spectre of a nanny state interfering in the private affairs of citizens.
When voters go to the polls later this year they will not recall that National voted for the legislation alongside Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party as a result of a last-minute deal with its leader John Key, but that it was Labour and its allies who pushed the bill through, just as it was Labour that took the lead in legalising prostitution, establishing civil unions, banning unhealthy food from school tuckshops and outlawing smoking in bars and restaurants.
All are initiatives that fit with New Zealand's tradition of pioneering social legislation, a tradition that began when New Zealand became the first country to give women the vote.
But politicians with long careers in mind know there is only so much innovation the public is prepared to put up with.
Labour could yet pay a price for going too far too fast.
Sir
Your editorial about the effect of Sue Bradford's anti-smacking legislation claimed the law change was one of many, "initiatives that fit with New Zealand's tradition of pioneering social legislation..."
New Zealand was by no means first to ban corporal punishment in the home. Just as it wasn't first to introduce civil unions, ban smoking in bars or legalise prostitution. Neither were we first with an old-age or widow's pension and other social security benefits that followed.
This mixed bag you describe as "innovation" is happening throughout the developed world, much of it at the behest of the United Nations and other champions of 'the state knows best.'
If New Zealanders wanted to legitimately lay claim to being pioneering front-runners, they would start by rejecting governments that regard their major role as controlling the social and financial lives of citizens. That really would be revolutionary.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
"Ending unconditional entitlement"
Chris Grayling is a Conservative MP in the UK. Here is his plan for their incapacity benefit ( which has proportionately more recipients than our sickness and invalid benefits);
120,000 more people claim incapacity benefit than 10 years ago and 52 per cent more under-24s are claiming than in 1997. Half a million people under 35 are now claiming the benefit. More than half of the people now claiming incapacity benefit have been receiving it for more than five years.
The majority of people signed on to this benefit by filling in a form and sending in a note from their doctor. Most claimants are then simply left to their own devices. We will change that. We will contact every single one of those 2.6 million people as quickly as possible. We will carry out face-to-face interviews with all of them, to assess what they can do, and how we can help them back into work. It's a big task, and it won't be done overnight, but it has to be done, and as rapidly as possible.
Our initial aim will be to offer most people a place on a structured programme of support to find them a job. We know that as many as a million people claiming incapacity benefit say that they hope to get back into the workplace. We will offer them the help they need to achieve that.
Those who don't want to accept that offer will be expected to undergo a full medical check to confirm what they can and can't do now, and what they might, with the right support, be able to do in the future. It will be done by someone independent, so the relationship with a family doctor doesn't affect the outcome.
Those found to be perfectly capable of working will lose their entitlement to incapacity benefit immediately. Many have been abusing the system. They will be transferred into the normal process for Jobseekers and will be expected to start looking for work straight away. Based on the experience of other countries, we expect at least 200,000 people to be affected.
Those who have the potential to get back into work - even if it's a different kind of job - but still have mental or physical hurdles to overcome will be required to join a return-to-work programme. Only those whose incapacity makes it impossible or unrealistic for them to work will be able to continue to claim the benefit without conditions.
For Britain such an approach marks a revolution in our welfare state. It marks an end to a situation where the receipt of incapacity benefit is an unconditional entitlement. In the future it will carry with it the responsibility to do everything that you can to get back into work and help lift yourself out of the poverty trap that incapacity benefit represents for so many people. It's already happening in places like New York. It's something we should aspire to in Britain.
A country where a young man and his family regard it as an achievement to get onto the "sick" is one that desperately needs reform. A country that brings in millions of workers but can't help people out of the trap that incapacity benefit has become, is one that desperately needs change.
Ending unconditional entitlement is the most important phrase here. The principle of discretionary granting must replace universality with some sort of appeals authority backing up the system. That's a start but I think that the Tories may have to change laws first. Ultimately incapacity benefits should be part of health funding and, as such, covered by insurance and even operated by competing private sector companies to prevent abuse.
Only a small group would have no means to contribute. Treat them separately. I have said it before. We (and the Uk and Australia) have our entire social security system designed around the worst case scenario with everyone lumped in together. Hence it is out of control.
Until the individual is responsible for insuring himself for adverse outcomes (with a commensurate tax cut) the distortionary and corrupting incentives will continue to make systems more damaging than useful.
120,000 more people claim incapacity benefit than 10 years ago and 52 per cent more under-24s are claiming than in 1997. Half a million people under 35 are now claiming the benefit. More than half of the people now claiming incapacity benefit have been receiving it for more than five years.
The majority of people signed on to this benefit by filling in a form and sending in a note from their doctor. Most claimants are then simply left to their own devices. We will change that. We will contact every single one of those 2.6 million people as quickly as possible. We will carry out face-to-face interviews with all of them, to assess what they can do, and how we can help them back into work. It's a big task, and it won't be done overnight, but it has to be done, and as rapidly as possible.
Our initial aim will be to offer most people a place on a structured programme of support to find them a job. We know that as many as a million people claiming incapacity benefit say that they hope to get back into the workplace. We will offer them the help they need to achieve that.
Those who don't want to accept that offer will be expected to undergo a full medical check to confirm what they can and can't do now, and what they might, with the right support, be able to do in the future. It will be done by someone independent, so the relationship with a family doctor doesn't affect the outcome.
Those found to be perfectly capable of working will lose their entitlement to incapacity benefit immediately. Many have been abusing the system. They will be transferred into the normal process for Jobseekers and will be expected to start looking for work straight away. Based on the experience of other countries, we expect at least 200,000 people to be affected.
Those who have the potential to get back into work - even if it's a different kind of job - but still have mental or physical hurdles to overcome will be required to join a return-to-work programme. Only those whose incapacity makes it impossible or unrealistic for them to work will be able to continue to claim the benefit without conditions.
For Britain such an approach marks a revolution in our welfare state. It marks an end to a situation where the receipt of incapacity benefit is an unconditional entitlement. In the future it will carry with it the responsibility to do everything that you can to get back into work and help lift yourself out of the poverty trap that incapacity benefit represents for so many people. It's already happening in places like New York. It's something we should aspire to in Britain.
A country where a young man and his family regard it as an achievement to get onto the "sick" is one that desperately needs reform. A country that brings in millions of workers but can't help people out of the trap that incapacity benefit has become, is one that desperately needs change.
Ending unconditional entitlement is the most important phrase here. The principle of discretionary granting must replace universality with some sort of appeals authority backing up the system. That's a start but I think that the Tories may have to change laws first. Ultimately incapacity benefits should be part of health funding and, as such, covered by insurance and even operated by competing private sector companies to prevent abuse.
Only a small group would have no means to contribute. Treat them separately. I have said it before. We (and the Uk and Australia) have our entire social security system designed around the worst case scenario with everyone lumped in together. Hence it is out of control.
Until the individual is responsible for insuring himself for adverse outcomes (with a commensurate tax cut) the distortionary and corrupting incentives will continue to make systems more damaging than useful.
Fake legs faster
What a peculiar story this is. An athlete has been banned from competing at the Olympics because his prosthetic limbs give him an unfair advantage.
He can hardly compete at the disabled Olympics.
He can hardly compete at the disabled Olympics.
'Presumed consent'
'Presumed consent' means, in the event of your death, you would be assumed to be an organ donor unless you have opted out. UK PM Gordon Brown is in favour and the subject received some coverage on TV3 yesterday. Andy Tookey, who petitioned parliament for the establishment of an organ donor register, is also for the idea. Apparently it operates in Spain and France.
But look at Brown's actual position;
Mr Brown voiced his sympathy for the plan and is urging a national debate on the change, although he believes that the families of dead relatives should have the right to block the use of organs.
But that is the crux of the existing problem. People expressly put 'donor' on their driver's licences and then their families override their wishes.
So even under 'presumed consent' Brown says the family can still block the donation.
Personally I think presumed consent would improve the situation for those on waiting lists for organs and I would enjoy watching people having to get off their backsides and do something about their beliefs. Nobody would be forced to donate - just forced to opt out.
Ultimately, however, if I had to vote on it, I would vote against. With my head and not my heart. I couldn't accord the state that much power, even over dead bodies.
What needs to be dealt with in law is what putting donor on your licence (or a specific donor card) means. My family are under strict instructions not to disregard my wishes - that if I died and anything is of use to someone else, they are most welcome to it.
I think we can increase New Zealand's donation rate without presumed consent. I see the US rate is more than double ours. A register would have been a good start.
But look at Brown's actual position;
Mr Brown voiced his sympathy for the plan and is urging a national debate on the change, although he believes that the families of dead relatives should have the right to block the use of organs.
But that is the crux of the existing problem. People expressly put 'donor' on their driver's licences and then their families override their wishes.
So even under 'presumed consent' Brown says the family can still block the donation.
Personally I think presumed consent would improve the situation for those on waiting lists for organs and I would enjoy watching people having to get off their backsides and do something about their beliefs. Nobody would be forced to donate - just forced to opt out.
Ultimately, however, if I had to vote on it, I would vote against. With my head and not my heart. I couldn't accord the state that much power, even over dead bodies.
What needs to be dealt with in law is what putting donor on your licence (or a specific donor card) means. My family are under strict instructions not to disregard my wishes - that if I died and anything is of use to someone else, they are most welcome to it.
I think we can increase New Zealand's donation rate without presumed consent. I see the US rate is more than double ours. A register would have been a good start.
Monday, January 14, 2008
"Are you a workaholic?"
An Auckland telephone technician is taking a stand against workaholism - with his own life as his prime exhibit.
This guy is behaving just like a reformed smoker. He is the Mark Peck of workaholism. Having 'saved' himself he's coming to save you.
Have a look through these questions. Apparently if you answer 'yes' to three or more you might be .....shush..... a workaholic.
1. Do you get more excited about your work than about family or anything else? SOMETIMES
2. Are there times when you can charge through your work and other times when you can't get anything done? YES
3. Do you take work with you to bed? On weekends? On holidays? YES
4. Is work the activity you like to do best and talk about most? SOMETIMES
5. Do you work more than 40 hours a week? SOMETIMES
6. Do you turn your hobbies into moneymaking ventures? YES
7. Do you take complete responsibility for the outcome of your work efforts? YES
8. Have your family or friends given up expecting you on time? NO
9. Do you take on extra work because you are concerned that it won't otherwise get done? YES
10. Do you underestimate how long a project will take and then rush to complete it? NO
11. Do you believe it's okay to work long hours if you love what you're doing? YES
12. Do you get impatient with people who have other priorities besides work? NO
13. Are you afraid that if you don't work hard you will lose your job or be a failure? NO
14. Is the future a constant worry for you even when things are going very well? NO
15. Do you do things energetically and competitively, including play? SOMETIMES
16. Do you get irritated when people ask you to stop doing your work in order to do something else? YES
17. Have your long hours hurt your family or other relationships? NO
18. Do you think about your work while driving, falling asleep or when others are talking? YES
19. Do you work or read during meals? YES
20. Do you believe more money will solve the other problems in your life? NO
9! I'm definitely in the running.
But look. For a change an academic is making more sense.
... psychologist Dr Lynley McMillan, who surveyed 421 employees and their partners for her doctoral thesis at Waikato University, found that those with "workaholic" symptoms, such as finding it hard to stop work and thinking about work outside work hours, did not meet key tests for an addiction.
Unlike alcoholics or drug addicts, the workers' ratings of themselves on measures of workaholism closely matched their partners' assessments of them, and both they and their partners reported relationships that were just as good as those of workers without any "workaholic" symptoms.
Dr McMillan concluded relationships could thrive as long as both partners had "matching working styles".
So what we need is more 'workaholics' producing lots of potential partners. If I needed one I'd be looking for a 9. But more importantly I'd be looking for one that knew how to mind their own business, understood the meaning of freedom and choice and didn't lecture me about how to run my life. Rare as hen's teeth. Fortunately I've already got one.
Please Mr Price leave us alone. It's bad enough with nanny incessantly hectoring us about work life balance. Enough.
This guy is behaving just like a reformed smoker. He is the Mark Peck of workaholism. Having 'saved' himself he's coming to save you.
Have a look through these questions. Apparently if you answer 'yes' to three or more you might be .....shush..... a workaholic.
1. Do you get more excited about your work than about family or anything else? SOMETIMES
2. Are there times when you can charge through your work and other times when you can't get anything done? YES
3. Do you take work with you to bed? On weekends? On holidays? YES
4. Is work the activity you like to do best and talk about most? SOMETIMES
5. Do you work more than 40 hours a week? SOMETIMES
6. Do you turn your hobbies into moneymaking ventures? YES
7. Do you take complete responsibility for the outcome of your work efforts? YES
8. Have your family or friends given up expecting you on time? NO
9. Do you take on extra work because you are concerned that it won't otherwise get done? YES
10. Do you underestimate how long a project will take and then rush to complete it? NO
11. Do you believe it's okay to work long hours if you love what you're doing? YES
12. Do you get impatient with people who have other priorities besides work? NO
13. Are you afraid that if you don't work hard you will lose your job or be a failure? NO
14. Is the future a constant worry for you even when things are going very well? NO
15. Do you do things energetically and competitively, including play? SOMETIMES
16. Do you get irritated when people ask you to stop doing your work in order to do something else? YES
17. Have your long hours hurt your family or other relationships? NO
18. Do you think about your work while driving, falling asleep or when others are talking? YES
19. Do you work or read during meals? YES
20. Do you believe more money will solve the other problems in your life? NO
9! I'm definitely in the running.
But look. For a change an academic is making more sense.
... psychologist Dr Lynley McMillan, who surveyed 421 employees and their partners for her doctoral thesis at Waikato University, found that those with "workaholic" symptoms, such as finding it hard to stop work and thinking about work outside work hours, did not meet key tests for an addiction.
Unlike alcoholics or drug addicts, the workers' ratings of themselves on measures of workaholism closely matched their partners' assessments of them, and both they and their partners reported relationships that were just as good as those of workers without any "workaholic" symptoms.
Dr McMillan concluded relationships could thrive as long as both partners had "matching working styles".
So what we need is more 'workaholics' producing lots of potential partners. If I needed one I'd be looking for a 9. But more importantly I'd be looking for one that knew how to mind their own business, understood the meaning of freedom and choice and didn't lecture me about how to run my life. Rare as hen's teeth. Fortunately I've already got one.
Please Mr Price leave us alone. It's bad enough with nanny incessantly hectoring us about work life balance. Enough.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Holiday job
I've decided to try my hand at growing veges. A small patch was required. Where to put it? Out of the way. Vege gardens aren't the most aesthetic things. Putting in a few more steps is no big deal. Here it is.
You wouldn't want to suffer from vertigo but the view is fantastic. Hope my carrots and broccoli appreciate it (if they survive the possums.)
On the way up to the skyline vege patch is this resting spot. The cabbage trees are from the 2005 ACT conference. My contribution to the stage decoration. They have grown rather well, unlike our parliamentary representation. But 2008 is another year. And I am ever the optimist.
You wouldn't want to suffer from vertigo but the view is fantastic. Hope my carrots and broccoli appreciate it (if they survive the possums.)
On the way up to the skyline vege patch is this resting spot. The cabbage trees are from the 2005 ACT conference. My contribution to the stage decoration. They have grown rather well, unlike our parliamentary representation. But 2008 is another year. And I am ever the optimist.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Putting the statistics in context
Earlier this week the Minister for Social Development, Ruth Dyson, was reported as being "unconcerned" about the large increase in young people on sickness and invalid benefits, saying the overall increase was "hardly a change at all".
Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell today offered to help the Minister put the statistics for young people in context.
"At the end of October there were 1,250 16-17 year-olds receiving an invalid or sickness benefit. In the United Kingdom, also experiencing a huge problem with dependency on incapacity benefits, there were 6,600 16-17 year-olds on the equivalent benefits."
"The population of the United Kingdom is 15 times greater than New Zealand's yet they have only 5 times as many 16-17 year-olds receiving an incapacity benefit. This difference should alert the Minister to a problem urgently warranting concern - not indifference or complacency."
Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell today offered to help the Minister put the statistics for young people in context.
"At the end of October there were 1,250 16-17 year-olds receiving an invalid or sickness benefit. In the United Kingdom, also experiencing a huge problem with dependency on incapacity benefits, there were 6,600 16-17 year-olds on the equivalent benefits."
"The population of the United Kingdom is 15 times greater than New Zealand's yet they have only 5 times as many 16-17 year-olds receiving an incapacity benefit. This difference should alert the Minister to a problem urgently warranting concern - not indifference or complacency."
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Minto and "myths about poverty"
From John Minto's column in today's New Zealand Herald;
The US has the highest levels of poverty in the Western world (more than 30 million) despite one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. Why would this be?
Poverty in the US is relative poverty. The US has a very high number because it has a very large population. 30 million is around 1 in 10.
One way to measure relative poverty is to base it on average median income, draw the line at half and count those falling beneath it. This report tells us that using that method 1 in 10 Australians is also living in poverty.
Another way of measuring relative poverty is based on calculating average household income (usually equivalised for size of family), drawing a line at 50 or 60 percent and counting every household that falls beneath that line.
According to MSD, the proportion of New Zealanders living in families with incomes less than 60% of the median income, adjusted for family size, housing costs and inflation since 1998, has fallen from 22% in 2001 to 19% in 2004.
At 50 percent the number falls to around one in ten also.
Now let's look at Minto's answer to his own question;
Last year in the US the increase in income of the top 1 per cent of income earners was greater than the entire income of the bottom 20 per cent of the population. What this staggering statistic means is that the bottom 20 per cent of US citizens, all of whom live in poverty, could have had their incomes doubled if the wealthiest 1 per cent had simply forgone an increase in income last year.
That's not an answer. It's a tired clapped out leftist assertion. The poor are poor because the rich are rich and if money was taken off the rich and given to the poor, then the poor wouldn't be poor any more. Ah yes. We've seen how successfully that theory works in practice.
As Minto acknowledges, the US has the highest incomes per capita in the world. Their relative poor are the relative rich by third world standards. Their relative poor are richer than New Zealand's relative poor. The US is a much richer country than New Zealand. That's because too many New Zealanders have spent too much time listening to and believing fallacies promoted by the likes of Minto.
And he has the audacity to end by saying,
"(Mike) Moore has no excuse for peddling more myths about poverty."
What's yours John?
The US has the highest levels of poverty in the Western world (more than 30 million) despite one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. Why would this be?
Poverty in the US is relative poverty. The US has a very high number because it has a very large population. 30 million is around 1 in 10.
One way to measure relative poverty is to base it on average median income, draw the line at half and count those falling beneath it. This report tells us that using that method 1 in 10 Australians is also living in poverty.
Another way of measuring relative poverty is based on calculating average household income (usually equivalised for size of family), drawing a line at 50 or 60 percent and counting every household that falls beneath that line.
According to MSD, the proportion of New Zealanders living in families with incomes less than 60% of the median income, adjusted for family size, housing costs and inflation since 1998, has fallen from 22% in 2001 to 19% in 2004.
At 50 percent the number falls to around one in ten also.
Now let's look at Minto's answer to his own question;
Last year in the US the increase in income of the top 1 per cent of income earners was greater than the entire income of the bottom 20 per cent of the population. What this staggering statistic means is that the bottom 20 per cent of US citizens, all of whom live in poverty, could have had their incomes doubled if the wealthiest 1 per cent had simply forgone an increase in income last year.
That's not an answer. It's a tired clapped out leftist assertion. The poor are poor because the rich are rich and if money was taken off the rich and given to the poor, then the poor wouldn't be poor any more. Ah yes. We've seen how successfully that theory works in practice.
As Minto acknowledges, the US has the highest incomes per capita in the world. Their relative poor are the relative rich by third world standards. Their relative poor are richer than New Zealand's relative poor. The US is a much richer country than New Zealand. That's because too many New Zealanders have spent too much time listening to and believing fallacies promoted by the likes of Minto.
And he has the audacity to end by saying,
"(Mike) Moore has no excuse for peddling more myths about poverty."
What's yours John?
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Pathetic
I shook my head as I watched and listened to Jhia Te Tua's father on TV3 tonight;
The mother of murdered Wanganui toddler Jhia Te Tua says she plans to leave the country to start a new life with her new baby boy.
Ria Gardiner will leave behind her Black Power partner Josh Te Tua, who says he sees no other option but return to Wanganui and avenge his daughter, who was killed during a drive-by gang shooting last year.
Te Tua has been undergoing counselling in the wake of his daughter’s death, but his anger at the 12 men charged over Jhia’s murder remains deeply entrenched.
The 22-year-old says revenge is inevitable and no plans to return to Wanganui and the Black Power.
While the 12 charged over Jhia’s death face a depositions hearing in Wellington next month, Te Tua himself will also be before the courts in Wanganui for an unrelated incident.
He, along with three associates, is charged with using a firearm against police and could face jail.
Jia Gardiner says she is awaiting her baby boy’s birth certificate and then plans a new life in Australia with family, away from the conflict.
During the interview he said, struggling, It's the anger thing......
More like it's the excitement thing. Exacting utu is more exciting than being a dad caring for his son. Pathetic and very sad.
The mother of murdered Wanganui toddler Jhia Te Tua says she plans to leave the country to start a new life with her new baby boy.
Ria Gardiner will leave behind her Black Power partner Josh Te Tua, who says he sees no other option but return to Wanganui and avenge his daughter, who was killed during a drive-by gang shooting last year.
Te Tua has been undergoing counselling in the wake of his daughter’s death, but his anger at the 12 men charged over Jhia’s murder remains deeply entrenched.
The 22-year-old says revenge is inevitable and no plans to return to Wanganui and the Black Power.
While the 12 charged over Jhia’s death face a depositions hearing in Wellington next month, Te Tua himself will also be before the courts in Wanganui for an unrelated incident.
He, along with three associates, is charged with using a firearm against police and could face jail.
Jia Gardiner says she is awaiting her baby boy’s birth certificate and then plans a new life in Australia with family, away from the conflict.
During the interview he said, struggling, It's the anger thing......
More like it's the excitement thing. Exacting utu is more exciting than being a dad caring for his son. Pathetic and very sad.
Serious question
Here are two comments from Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples.
Less than a year ago;
“I’ve got extended family on the benefit and they’re just dead, living dead. The whole dependency takes away their mana in the first place and then it takes away their drive and then they expect it – that’s when it’s hard to break them out of the ‘life owes me a living’ mentality. I bash the benefit system not the beneficiaries. We need to give them back hope.”
Today;
“Labour must be held to account for successive Ministers, and their own Families Commission, lacking the political courage to face up to the findings of their own research – research which proves what we in the Maori Party have been consistently saying, that beneficiary children and families are getting a rough deal due to lack of support and inadequate income”.
Can you tell me, from these two comments, does the Maori Party want more or less welfare?
Less than a year ago;
“I’ve got extended family on the benefit and they’re just dead, living dead. The whole dependency takes away their mana in the first place and then it takes away their drive and then they expect it – that’s when it’s hard to break them out of the ‘life owes me a living’ mentality. I bash the benefit system not the beneficiaries. We need to give them back hope.”
Today;
“Labour must be held to account for successive Ministers, and their own Families Commission, lacking the political courage to face up to the findings of their own research – research which proves what we in the Maori Party have been consistently saying, that beneficiary children and families are getting a rough deal due to lack of support and inadequate income”.
Can you tell me, from these two comments, does the Maori Party want more or less welfare?
Not much to boast about
Since the gang killing of a 2 year-old in Wanganui, the city's reported crime has dropped 4 percent.
Is that all?
"...Police were boosted by the arrests. There were more than 60 arrests [of gang members and associates] during the inquiry, which has had a big impact on gangs' local offending. But crime not associated with gangs goes on."
"...And despite international media attention stirring images of Wanganui being a troubled city on the brink of a gang war, reported crime in the city dropped by 4 per cent from the shooting until November last year."
The shooting happened in May so in the following 6 months, when the police activity was at its most intense, reported crime dropped only 4 percent.
Mr MacLeod [area commander inspector] said reported crime always dropped when there were extra police in a city for a major inquiry.
"It goes against the argument that extra numbers don't make a difference - well, it does."
Not much though. Hard to make an economic argument for extra numbers based on that result. Either the gangs weren't responsible for a large chunk of the crime in the first place, or when the police were otherwise occupied, other crime increased.
And of course if I fail to mention it someone else will. This is only 'reported' crime. The vast majority of violent victimisation goes unreported.
Is that all?
"...Police were boosted by the arrests. There were more than 60 arrests [of gang members and associates] during the inquiry, which has had a big impact on gangs' local offending. But crime not associated with gangs goes on."
"...And despite international media attention stirring images of Wanganui being a troubled city on the brink of a gang war, reported crime in the city dropped by 4 per cent from the shooting until November last year."
The shooting happened in May so in the following 6 months, when the police activity was at its most intense, reported crime dropped only 4 percent.
Mr MacLeod [area commander inspector] said reported crime always dropped when there were extra police in a city for a major inquiry.
"It goes against the argument that extra numbers don't make a difference - well, it does."
Not much though. Hard to make an economic argument for extra numbers based on that result. Either the gangs weren't responsible for a large chunk of the crime in the first place, or when the police were otherwise occupied, other crime increased.
And of course if I fail to mention it someone else will. This is only 'reported' crime. The vast majority of violent victimisation goes unreported.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Never enough
Paul Blair, beneficiary advocate, who forced the Ministry of Social Development to change the rules so parents with split custody of children could both claim the DPB, (a complete corruption of the original intent of this benefit) wrote a report. It was based on a sample of 15 DPB recipients who he was already providing advocacy work for. He got the Families Commission to pay for the research but then they wouldn't publish it. It appears he has now paid for the publication himself. The findings?
"It was felt that Work and Income was not forthcoming enough with extra assistance that might alleviate poverty and facilitate genuine personal and family development," the report said.
"On the whole, sole-parent DPB recipients felt that an emphasis on paid employment as the ultimate outcome ignored and devalued the work they were currently engaged in (as parents)."
What a bunch of whingers.
I am reminded of a passage from Margaret McClure's work about the history of social security in New Zealand;
Charitable aid administrators were extraordinarily cautious; they aimed to relieve absolute destitution only. Grace Neill, an early official, felt that if they attempted to do more, and alleviate poverty, ‘we may as well try to fill a sieve with water.’
How right she was.
"It was felt that Work and Income was not forthcoming enough with extra assistance that might alleviate poverty and facilitate genuine personal and family development," the report said.
"On the whole, sole-parent DPB recipients felt that an emphasis on paid employment as the ultimate outcome ignored and devalued the work they were currently engaged in (as parents)."
What a bunch of whingers.
I am reminded of a passage from Margaret McClure's work about the history of social security in New Zealand;
Charitable aid administrators were extraordinarily cautious; they aimed to relieve absolute destitution only. Grace Neill, an early official, felt that if they attempted to do more, and alleviate poverty, ‘we may as well try to fill a sieve with water.’
How right she was.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Incapacity benefit growth and refusing to answer questions
There is some discussion at Kiwiblog regarding the reasons why the number of people on incapacity benefits is growing.
One commentor says Judith Collins should know what the breakdown of incapacity according to age etc is, due to the written questions she has asked. How glib. Questions are NOT ANSWERED.
For example;
11954 (2007). Judith Collins to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (06 Jul 2007): Further to the answer to question for written answer 8800 (2007) what is the age breakdown, by year, of all recipients of the Sickness Benefit who have received that benefit for more than 12 months, listed by incapacity?
Hon David Benson-Pope (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: I refer the Member to the quarterly benefit factsheets, which are publicly available on the Ministry’s website, www.msd.govt.nz.
The factsheets DO NOT provide this information.
I am unaware of any age specific breakdown but the tables below (left click to enlarge) clearly show where the growth areas are overall.
For both benefits the largest increases are for psychological or psychiatric conditions.
One commentor says Judith Collins should know what the breakdown of incapacity according to age etc is, due to the written questions she has asked. How glib. Questions are NOT ANSWERED.
For example;
11954 (2007). Judith Collins to the Minister for Social Development and Employment (06 Jul 2007): Further to the answer to question for written answer 8800 (2007) what is the age breakdown, by year, of all recipients of the Sickness Benefit who have received that benefit for more than 12 months, listed by incapacity?
Hon David Benson-Pope (Minister for Social Development and Employment) replied: I refer the Member to the quarterly benefit factsheets, which are publicly available on the Ministry’s website, www.msd.govt.nz.
The factsheets DO NOT provide this information.
I am unaware of any age specific breakdown but the tables below (left click to enlarge) clearly show where the growth areas are overall.
For both benefits the largest increases are for psychological or psychiatric conditions.
Separatism has no future
Why do some people persist with separatism as a principle for policy formation?
Why do we have a party based on race?
Isn't the above the best news about race relations in New Zealand?
Indefensible response
Good on National MP Judith Collins for pointing out that the number of young people on sickness and invalid's benefits has substantially increased under Labour.
To add weight to her argument, that this is a new trend under Labour, the number of Invalid Benefits paid to 15-19 year-olds in 1990 was 1,923 - just 11 fewer than in 2000.
In 1990 there were 1,889 15-19 year-olds receiving a sickness benefit. The number had dropped to 1,077 by 2000.
Conclusion: National has a better record than Labour in respect to the number of young people on incapacity benefits.
I am appalled by Ruth Dyson's reaction;
Social Development and Employment Minister Ruth Dyson was not concerned about the figures, saying the overall increase was "hardly a change at all".
How can she justify that?
In 2001 there were 265,281 15-19 year-olds - by 2006 300,198 15-19 year-olds (Census counts).
That's a 13 percent rise over roughly the same period. Yet the growth in 15-19 year-olds on either a sickness or invalid benefit is 65 percent.
Can anybody else have a shot at explaining her response?
To add weight to her argument, that this is a new trend under Labour, the number of Invalid Benefits paid to 15-19 year-olds in 1990 was 1,923 - just 11 fewer than in 2000.
In 1990 there were 1,889 15-19 year-olds receiving a sickness benefit. The number had dropped to 1,077 by 2000.
Conclusion: National has a better record than Labour in respect to the number of young people on incapacity benefits.
I am appalled by Ruth Dyson's reaction;
Social Development and Employment Minister Ruth Dyson was not concerned about the figures, saying the overall increase was "hardly a change at all".
How can she justify that?
In 2001 there were 265,281 15-19 year-olds - by 2006 300,198 15-19 year-olds (Census counts).
That's a 13 percent rise over roughly the same period. Yet the growth in 15-19 year-olds on either a sickness or invalid benefit is 65 percent.
Can anybody else have a shot at explaining her response?
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Bill Ralston on benefit debt
I read Bill Ralston's column today with a sense of bemusement. He chose the two things I had used to highlight how National are fiddling, to highlight where money could be saved for taxcuts. The $45,000 on TVs for prisoners and the $761 million of beneficiary debt.
This is the same Bill Ralston that used to host radio talkback. I well remember one day trying to start a conversation about how a welfare culture leads to crime. He made a sarcastic rejoinder that perhaps beneficiaries were committing crime because they weren't paid enough, and cut me off.
In today's column he writes;
Another fact that should make Helen Clark think twice about her handout strategy is the debt mountain in the Ministry of Social Development. More than 500 people are now employed by the MSD to try to control the $761 million of beneficiary debt. While it must be hard, at times, to get blood out of a stone, you do have to wonder about the competence of the MSD in failing so abysmally to manage its own affairs.
Here's a thought - that $761 million, if recovered, would make a nice start in tax cuts for people who work for a living.
Now there's a change in tune.
Apart from which, I am unsure how the $761 million, which is mostly being repaid through further benefit reductions, can be used for tax cuts. But then I am not an economist.
This is the same Bill Ralston that used to host radio talkback. I well remember one day trying to start a conversation about how a welfare culture leads to crime. He made a sarcastic rejoinder that perhaps beneficiaries were committing crime because they weren't paid enough, and cut me off.
In today's column he writes;
Another fact that should make Helen Clark think twice about her handout strategy is the debt mountain in the Ministry of Social Development. More than 500 people are now employed by the MSD to try to control the $761 million of beneficiary debt. While it must be hard, at times, to get blood out of a stone, you do have to wonder about the competence of the MSD in failing so abysmally to manage its own affairs.
Here's a thought - that $761 million, if recovered, would make a nice start in tax cuts for people who work for a living.
Now there's a change in tune.
Apart from which, I am unsure how the $761 million, which is mostly being repaid through further benefit reductions, can be used for tax cuts. But then I am not an economist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
