Emotive claim does stand up to scrutiny

Let's fact check Unicef's national advocacy manager Deborah Travis Morris who claims:

They are the 40,000 kids living with chronic poverty-related illnesses, who see the inside of hospital more often than a kindergarten or kohanga reo.

The obvious place to test the validity of this is the Child Health monitor (now renamed Child Poverty Monitor) which I regard as a reliable statistical source. One with which the writer will be familiar.

There are 40,765 average annual hospital admissions for conditions with a social gradient in children aged 0–14 years - clearly where the "40,000" comes from.

Firstly, admissions are much higher amongst very young children who would yet to have even enrolled at a "kindergarten or kohanga reo".

Secondly, multiple admissions may apply to one individual. A child who is chronically sick may be admitted 2 or more times in the space of a year. Therefore the likely number of individual children admitted is considerably lower than 40,000.

Thirdly, and most obviously, an admission (or discharge) statistic alone tells us nothing about the length of stay.

Despite extensive searching the following is the best information I can find. It applies to all patients however, not just children.


On balance the claim looks like a significant statistical exaggeration and, with respect to the majority of admissions applying to children who wouldn't be of "kindergarten or kohanga reo" age, highly misleading.

Parliamentary attendance

Arrived in my e-mail inbox with the by-line, Need one say any more about our illustrious legislators? 

 

56% of Americans think govt is "almost always wasteful and inefficient"

The Brookings Institute reports on new research into who does and doesn't vote, and why. Highly relevant to NZ I expect.

People who feel financially secure vote, people who aren’t secure don’t, according to a Pew Research Center report released this morning. And because financially insecure Americans disproportionately identify with the Democratic Party, Democrats face a structural disadvantage, especially in mid-term elections. In 2014, fully 94% of the most financially secure Americans were registered to vote, compared to only 54% of the least secure; 63% of the most secure were likely voters, versus only 20% of the least secure.

Though I doubt we'd get the following result if surveyed:

 40% of all Americans think that government does a better job than people give it credit for compared to 56% who believe that it is almost always wasteful and inefficient.

New Zealanders aren't as cynical about government as Americans - yet.

I might be wrong.

"Voluntary vs Mandatory Charity"

Nicely laid out argument from the Future of Freedom Foundation president who says that mandatory charity makes us all poorer and, as a result, there is less wealth available to help others:

As everyone knows, one of the major differences between statists and libertarians is over the issue of charity. Libertarians believe that charity should be voluntary. Statists believe it should be mandatory.
In analyzing this fundamental difference in perspective, there is one indisputable fact: The more wealth there is in a society, the greater the amount of charity that can be provided to others.
Now, I know what a statist would immediately say: “Jacob, people are just no darned good — well, except for me of course. They have to be forced to give their money to others.”

More

Council of Trade Unions economist wrong on many counts

Council of Trade Unions economist had this piece published in the DomPost, December 27 (not on-line):

Rosenberg claims that recent OECD research  "...affirmed that higher welfare benefits and more progressive taxation were part of the solution..."  to tackling poverty. He should search the term "higher welfare benefits" in the paper. It can't be found. That is because the paper specifically promoted better in-work benefits. The NZ example would be the In Work Tax Credit.

To reduce inequality the author, Federico Cingano, recommended, "...active labour market policies, childcare supports and in-work benefits".

Then Rosenberg writes, "According to the Ministry of Social Development's Household Incomes Report, half of the children in hardship are in working families."

What the report actually says:

Poverty rates for children in working families are on average much lower than for those in beneficiary families (11% and 75% respectively), but 2 out of 5 poor children come from families where at least one adult is in full-time work or is self-employed.

The percentage is 40, not half. But the important distinction is that children in poor families with work tend to be in temporary poverty whereas those in families on benefits tend to experience chronic poverty. The latter is more damaging.

Next he writes "Benefits have been adjusted only by inflation..." which ignores that add-ons or second tier benefits like the accommodation supplement and family tax credits have increased by more than the inflation rate.

The claim that, "A single parent with two children in New Zealand receives 54 percent of the average wage according to OECD data..." is also suspect. The OECD will be working with basic benefits rates which are only part of what a beneficiary receives. 

According to Paula Bennett last year,

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

The average income from wages or salary in 2013 was $962 (June quarter). That makes the DPB income 67 percent of average wage. (The median earned income was $834 in 2013 but we must compare apples with apples.)

Rosenberg's over-arching view that, "Being born into a family reliant on a benefit is close to a guarantee of poverty" is correct based on the official poverty measure (at or below 60 percent of the median equivalised household income).

Unfortunately every year around one in five babies born will be benefit-dependent at birth or shortly after.

This is the behavioural pattern that is causing the poverty problem. It's the pattern that has to change. If Mr Rosenberg's solution of higher welfare benefits is adopted, those trend lines will go up.