A break from the serious stuff

An elderly man from Stratford is stopped by the police around 2 a.m. And is asked where he is going at this time of night.

The man replies, "I am on my way to a lecture about gambling, alcohol abuse and the effects it has on the human body, as well as smoking and staying out late."

The officer then asks, "Really? Who is giving that lecture at this time of night?"

The man replies, "That would be my wife."

And this is an absolute must for doggie types. Hilariously put together and utterly heart-warming. The Irish pug sung by the Irish Pug.

"The Empty Playground and the Welfare State"

This is a fascinating piece distributed by the NCPA. Apparently people who don't have children are 'free-riders' and socialised retirement has created more and more of them. I have a couple of problems with this. Many childless people pay disproportionate amounts of tax over their lifetimes. And thanks to other forms of working-age welfare some parents produce children that are not contributors. And the reasons behind falling fertility rates are multiple. But it's nevertheless an interesting theory.

The Empty Playground and the Welfare State

In centuries past, the traditional method for workers to prepare for retirement and ensure that their needs would be met was to have children.  Ideally, parents would invest time and resources into raising their children, who would then care for their elderly parents in their retirement, says Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor for the National Review.
This process has changed, but less than one might think.  The relationship between the younger and older generation remains the same (the prior financially provides for the latter) -- the primary difference is that the system is socialized.  All younger citizens pay in, and all older citizens receive.
Interestingly, the hidden effect of the socialization of this relationship is that it has created a widespread free rider problem, pitting those with children against those without them.

• Parents must invest in their children in order to turn them into productive workers, capable of caring for themselves and contributing to government programs for the elderly.
• Parents will then receive outlays from these programs later in life, which are presumably the fruits of their children's labor.
• However, non-parents will have the same retirement security provided by Social Security without having to raise their own children.
• In short, non-parents are given a free ride off of the efforts and sacrifices of parents.

This is not to say that there are no other reasons for having children than retirement security; of course, many parents gain joy from raising children while others see it as an expression of gratitude for the life they have been given.  Nevertheless, the presence of this free rider problem should, theoretically, result in people having fewer children in countries with developed Social Security programs.

• In a 2005 paper by economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research, they found that fertility rates dropped rapidly just after World War II, just when socialized retirement security programs were expanded.
• Additionally, fertility rates fell further in Europe, where entitlements were expanded more than they were in the United States.
• In their model, entitlements account for roughly half of the decline in fertility.
• They found that when a pension system expands by 10 percent of gross domestic product, the average number of children per woman drops by 0.7 to 1.6.

Bradford berates Bennett

At the weekend it was Metiria Turei bollocking Paula Bennett for "plunging the knife" into solo mums. Today it's Sue Bradford's turn. But first, consider the incongruity of her position.

Sue Bradford wants the state to step in when a child is smacked. She didn't want any parent to be able claim the use of 'reasonable force' when disciplining a child and get away with it.

But she wants the state to keep right out of influencing whether or not a parent previously convicted of serious child abuse or murder has a further child.  

[Paula Bennett] said the Cabinet was considering a range of options to deal with the issue of known child abusers or killers having further children - including allowing the Court to direct someone convicted of serious child abuse or neglect or murder not to have more children.

Bradford responds:

Government moves towards judicial control of some womens’ reproductive rights are another insidious step on the slippery road to State eugenics says Auckland Action Against Poverty spokesperson Sue Bradford. ‘It is abhorrent that on top of encouraging long acting contraception for all women beneficiaries and worktesting them from the time their baby is one year old, Paula Bennett now intends to find a way to stop some mothers from having children at all. ‘While the protection of children should always be paramount, our group recognises that the courts and CYFS already have the right to step in and remove babies and children if they are in danger.’

But this is after the fact and frequently these children will be damaged in utero because of their mother's (and father's) habits.

I am the last person to defend the state's desire to interfere in personal matters. But the first to concede it has a role in protecting children and adults from real harm inflicted by another individual. What I want to see is known perpetrator's paying for crimes. Not the vast majority taking the weight of interventionist legislation which attempts to find the needle in the haystack.

Truth Column Friday June 1

 

Last week's Truth column about TV7 and others here.

I see Bob Jones is now writing a weekly column for the NZ Herald and Rodney Hide's Herald on Sunday offering was superb.

And I am confused because I thought Deborah Coddington had finished writing for the same paper but maybe she is doing an occasional column.

NZ no longer tied to the Monarchy's apron strings

I'm not particularly interested in the Monarchy but I am in social change. Statistics New Zealand put together this pictorial for the Queen's Jubilee:

New Zealand’s population – both humans and cows – has more than doubled in the 60 years that Queen Elizabeth II has been on the throne, but it seems the price of an electric kettle is a fraction of what it once was.

Statistics New Zealand has been delving into historical data from 1952 and comparing it with the latest information available. 

Deputy Government Statistician Dallas Welch says New Zealand’s population has changed markedly. 

“Back in 1952, New Zealand broke through the 2 million population barrier and 60 years on, that’s more than doubled to 4.4 million. Coincidentally, the number of dairy cows has also more than doubled from less than 3 million, to over 6 million.” 

Mrs Welch said immigration patterns have also changed. 

“When the Queen first took the throne, more than half of our immigrants came from the United Kingdom. Today that’s more like 17 percent, although in the past year, more people still moved here from the UK than from any other place. 

“In trade, the Old Country used to contribute about two-thirds of our export earnings. Last year, 3 percent of our export earnings came from the UK.” 

And as for making a nice cup of tea, in 1952 an electric kettle cost 59 shillings and 6 pence (about $164 in today’s terms) and a 1lb (500g) pack of tea was 6 shillings and 4 pence (about $16.60). Today a kettle costs about $44 on average, and a box of 100 teabags (about 200g of tea) costs about $4.46.

More on welfare reform and teenage birth/abortion

More discussion with Mr Puddleglum which you can ignore if you are not interested:

"Second, I see your graphs (on your blog) confirm, or don’t contradict, the claim that rates of African American ‘out of wedlock’ births were pretty constant between 1920 and 1990. So I take it you accept that point?"

I have scanned what Murray actually wrote about illegimate births in Losing Ground. He didn't dispute it either.

You say (or cite someone else saying)  black, employed and married women decreased the number of children they were having so the illegitimate percentage rose. But surely the problem is that the illegitimate babies were the ones being raised on welfare, being poor and being disadvantaged and their numbers, in absolute terms, were growing. (By the way, Charles Murray's latest idea about solving poverty and welfare reliance is a basic minimum income from the state for every adult individual. Something like Gareth Morgan's proposition.)

"Since 1990, the graphs you posted indicate significant reductions in that rate, especially amongst African Americans but also, to a much smaller degree in other groups. You think – or at least I assume you do – that that decline is associated with ‘welfare reforms’ initiated prior to and during that period? These ‘reforms’ being removal of access to cash benefits, etc. I’m interested in why you are interested in that particular possibility rather than others such as (a) the economic up-turn in the 1990s (If I recall from the link in my last response, that was the explanation for the increase in the proportion of African American ‘out of wedlock’ births prior to 1990 – more employment and therefore fewer births overall, therefore unmarried births formed a greater proportion of the birth rate) and (b) the increased funding for Medicaid and related contraception and abortion services (here and here), especially for low income groups. I’m particularly interested in the latter as I also take it that you support the current proposal to provide free, long-acting contraception to young women beneficiaries (suggesting that you think it will be an effective measure)? Given that African Americans are disproportionately represented amongst the low income groups, the effect would be particularly significant for that group."

What I said was, "In which case you would have to conclude that reforms have nothing to do with the tumbling rates after 1990. I don't accept that. Neither do I rule out other factors at play." If it were the economy alone a turn-around would have occurred during the later 2000s. It hasn't. I'd guess that the extra contraception funding was effective as part of the reforms because the abortion rate also decreased. So unless sexual behaviour has changed, falling birthrate and falling abortion rate equals more prevention.

Abortion rates

Do I think offering free long-acting contraception to women beneficiaries will help? To a degree. When female beneficiaries know that they will be work-tested when any additional child is one year-old they will be more motivated to avoid that outcome. But young women who want babies - for whatever reason - or who are disinclined to use contraception for other reasons - eg weight gain - aren't going to be persuaded.

"There’s a third possible cause for this decline in rates of unmarried births – marriage may have become popular again, especially for young teenagers (I seem to recall something about the ‘resurgence’ of marriage?). There’s also the artefactual effect stated in the footnote to the table underpinning the graphs (in the original source): “Trends in non-marital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring non-marital births when marital status is not reported.” (Interestingly, the rates of unmarried births reduced far less significantly for African Americans aged 18 and 19 years (about 15% between 1995-2002) than it did for 16-17 year olds (33%) – why would that be the case given that, presumably, any ‘welfare reforms’ would have affected those groups equally?)"

I wouldn't assume they were affected equally by the welfare reforms. Part of the reform process was focussed on keeping younger girls in school and living with a 'responsible adult' as a prerequisite for receiving cash assistance. Similar to what National is going to attempt. Marriage resurgence? In general marriage rates across races are down. That doesn't mean a sub-group (by age) wouldn't be following a different trend but I can't find any evidence of it among African American teenagers. Increasing co-habitation is another muddying factor but co-habitations tend to be far less stable than marriages. In fact their brevity often leads to reliance on welfare assistance with a young child.

"Given these other possible explanations why focus on an explanation that, if incorrect, could result in significant further hardship (i.e., no effect on birth rates but more instability of income for the mother)? Isn’t that quite a risk to take?"

Can I take a broad approach now because arguing individual points is interesting but very time-consuming.

Here's my position (and it encompasses your further remarks about time spent on welfare not being a problem.) In all of your discussion you haven't mentioned fathers and the role they used to play in 'poor' families. I think fathers are very important. I think men's evolved role - in western societies - has been significantly damaged by welfare in as much as low-income earners were made redundant as bread-winners. The curtailment of welfare - or at least the restoration of welfare as a genuine last resort - carries with it risks. But the greater risk in my mind is to continue to allow or encourage the demise of the two-parent family (see, I am also old-fashioned:-))

Your viewpoint appears to accept the high level of single parents and works on how best the  state should ensure their children, who are disproportionately reliant on welfare,  do well. Hence the DPB isn't a problem to you.

Whereas I believe the strongest society is built on enduring, mutually supporting, voluntarily co-dependent relationships between individuals. There will always be relative poverty but strong families compensate for this (in NZ this is illustrated by Pacific and Asian families.) I have no doubt that we both want the same end but we are going to disagree on means.

I reflect momentarily, wouldn't it be great to see the US downward trends in teenage birth and abortion happening here.

 
There is some very recent improvement but there isn't a long-term established trend.

 By the way I found a more recent table (2010) for the US:

African American teenage birthrate and reliance on welfare

The following is posted to support a discussion I am having elsewhere. The Political Scientist is arguing, or seems to be, that teenage birth and recourse to welfare shouldn't be characterised as a problem or 'poor choice' and offering long-acting contraception is the wrong approach.

I have already responded to one claim he cites - "there was likely no correlation between the level of welfare ben­efits and the incidence of out- of-wedlock births" -  at his blog.

Below I address two more:

Claim:

 "An examination of the rate of babies born to unwed African American teenagers remains virtually unchanged from 1920 through 1990.[39]"

The "rate of babies born" means the number of births per 1,000 15-19 year-old African Americans.

The graphs below show plummeting unwed teenage births to African Americans since the early 1990s. Many individual states had their own reforms well before 1996 - the year when federal reform occurred.

The claim implies welfare benefits had nothing to do with the rate of African American illegitimacy 1920 to 1990 because of its constancy (ignores the steep rise during the 80s).

In which case you would have to conclude that reforms have nothing to do with the tumbling rates after 1990. I don't accept that. Neither do I rule out other factors at play.

The rate has continued to fall by the way with a slight blip somewhere around 2007-08 (from memory).

Source

Claim:

"...the myth of widespread permanent welfare status proved equally impossible to correct. Numerous reports and studies demonstrated that welfare was a transient state for most recipients and that it served primarily as a temporary safety net during financial crisis caused by job loss or family crisis.[42]”

 The Political Scientist reiterates this in a comment to me:

"I’m also aware that you have spent much time and energy arguing for ‘welfare reform’ on the assumption that it creates something that you, and many others, refer to as ‘welfare dependency’.

It is, of course, mistaken but, given the correlational nature of much of the research that is perhaps understandable. We are all prone to confirmation bias."

The statistical phenomenon of short-term reliance hiding long-term is explained below via NZ research into how long people rely on the DPB:

On average, sole parents receiving main benefits had more disadvantaged backgrounds than might have been expected:

·          just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period observed (the previous 10 years in most cases) supported by main benefits

·          a third appeared to have become parents in their teenage years.

This reflects the over-representation of sole parents with long stays on benefit among those in receipt at any point in time, and the longer than average stays on benefit for those who become parents as teenagers.

Had the research considered all people granted benefit as a sole parent, or all people who received benefit as a sole parent over a window of time rather than at a point in time, the overall profile of the group would have appeared less disadvantaged.

 And another explanation I have used before from The Poverty of Welfare:

8 out of 10 years reliant on the DPB is a good enough definition of 'welfare dependency' for me.

Social messaging promoted over basic safety

When you toot a horn you startle and momentarily distract every other driver or pedestrian in the vicinity. Hence Officially:

Using the horn

The horn should only be used as a reasonable traffic warning. It should not make an unnecessary or unreasonably loud, harsh or shrill noise.

 Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia has suggested drivers should show their disapproval of others smoking in cars carrying children by tooting at them and wagging their finger like Supernanny scolding a child.

Some are so obsessed with the long-terms dangers smoking can cause that they have left their common-sense parked up somewhere.

I've had it

This poor bastard has had enough.

 (Hat tip Sean Fitzpatrick)

5 kids, 2 dead, 2 years jail

None of this raises eyebrows any more. There are loads more culprits just getting away with it. Just having the luck scales tip their way. Just avoiding criminality. But the impact on their surviving children is the same. Born to incapable parents, sent to questionable second carers, set on a life of utter insecurity and incomprehension of why. This is New Zealand.

(No need to point out to me that is was probably 6 kids. It is de-humanising to squabble over the adequate and accurate  quantification of humanity.)

Crowding

For the 'sky is falling' types a paper released by Statistics NZ today describes 'crowding ' since 1921.

"The 1921 Census identified 9 percent of dwellings as crowded. These were dwellings with more than 1.5 people per room (now considered severe crowding)......According to the 1921 people per room measure, less than 1 percent of households were severely crowded in 2006."

Just under 1 in 10  down to under 1 in 100.

The world is a better place in very, many ways.

Families Commission - effectively gone

I didn't really want to think very hard about the implications of the Families Commission 're-structuring' but was prompted to when asked to go on Jim Mora's panel this afternoon (contact from RNZ 2 days running - did a taped interview yesterday's about the 22 percent of babies being on welfare by year-end).

I have concluded that its a de facto abolition. The money from their budget is going into projects that will support the welfare reforms. Parenting programmes for instance. And the new SuPERU unit (Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit) will support, in particular, all the extra 'wrap-around' privately-provided youth services dovetailing with the new Youth Payment.

In 2008, prior to the election, Key told Family First he would get rid of the Families Commission and then hastily retracted his statement when it was published in the DomPost. This is the next best move. Christian conservative Peter Dunne has never been happy with his 2002 confidence and supply trophy which couldn't even define what a family is. The Commission was subsequently hijacked by Labour under Rajen Prasad, now a Labour MP and constant apologist for welfare dependence. For instance, it strongly advocated for the anti-smacking legislation which United Future vehemently opposed. And Dunne won't feel any regret about losing Christine Rankin, a current commissioner.

The Families Commission was largely a waste of time and resources though I will say that recently, some sharper,  more NZ-relevant research emerged.

But we are past talking now. We were past talking in 2003 when I submitted my opposition to select committee overseeing the formative legislation. More government isn't the answer.

Growing up in New Zealand

According to the NZ Herald, the restructured Families Commission is to take responsibility for the Growing Up in NZ study which has a sample of just under 7,000 babies born in Counties Manukau and Waikato in a period between 2009-2010.

Coincidentally I was looking at that study just yesterday. Regarding 'family resources',  at nine months of age it found 18 percent of babies had parents who received income from a main benefit in their first year. This number is too low, especially in those regions. The reason for the undercount is probably considerable drop-out from the study - 7 percent by nine months. And quite probably the very people we need to take more notice of, those families that are least able to provide good care for their children, are the ones most likely to drop out. So as long-term studies go it is already carrying a frustrating deficiency.

Nevertheless the first report is chocker full of interesting information about the babies and their parents. Things that stand out for me include the high reported use of marijuana, especially by partners; one in ten mothers smoked tobacco through pregnancy; reported relationship status doesn't match  DPB use when the baby is young - that is a fair number of people receiving the DPB actually have a partner. 457 mothers had no partner when the baby was 9 months yet 723 received income from the DPB.  And 8-9 percent slept in their parent's bed.

"Awaiting moderation" on Frogblog

Green MP Holly Walker wants to end child poverty in two terms by arriving at a parliamentary accord about the matter. As my subject today was the number of babies born last year relying on welfare by year-end contributing substantially to the child poverty problem, this afternoon I posted the following comment. It has been "awaiting moderation" ever since (now 9:10pm). I don't know why both Frogblog and Red Alert do this to my comments. I am never rude or abusive.
 

I released statistics today that show that 22 percent of babies born last year were dependent on a benefit by year-end. This isn’t an aberrant stat. Through good times and bad between one in four and one in five children is added to a new or existing benefit at or shortly after their birth. You won’t solve ‘child poverty’ without reducing this pattern of behaviour.

(BTW, who is Photonz1 who consistently puts up arguments against Green positions? Be nice to know.)

Smokers save the taxpayer money

So the latest taxes are no more than imposing state ideals and revenue gathering....

Radio NZ reports on Treasury officially acknowledging the truth.

A report by the Treasury has admitted smoking actually saves the Government money in the long run.
The fiscal benefits of smoking have long been suspected but rarely acknowledged and a report by Treasury now puts this on the record.
In its report, Treasury says smokers often die earlier than non-smokers and save the state in superannuation costs.
Treasury says smokers pay $1.3 billion a year in excise which may already exceed the direct health costs they impose.
The report then goes on to consider broader economic questions. It says smokers' shorter life expectancy reduces superannuation and aged care costs, meaning they are already "paying their way in narrowly fiscal terms"
The report was prepared for last week's Budget decision to raise the tax on cigarettes to discourage smoking.
Research by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research has suggested that people should be able to pay increased prices into a special fund and get the money back later if they can prove they have quit.
The economic consultancy says that would be more effective than giving the money to the Government in higher taxes.

22 percent of babies born 2011 on welfare by year-end

Media Release

22 PERCENT OF BABIES BORN IN 2011 ON WELFARE BY YEAR-END

Monday, 28 May, 2012

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said that data released to her under the official Information Act  show that 22.2 percent of babies born in 2011  were dependent on a caregiver receiving a benefit by the end of the same year.

"Over one in five babies reliant on welfare by year-end is a sobering statistic. Almost half of the caregivers were Maori and half were aged 24 or younger."

"There is an established pattern of childbearing followed by reasonably rapid, if not immediate, recourse to welfare in New Zealand.  This occurs during good and bad economic periods."

"The implications for this high percentage lie in the likelihood of these children remaining on a benefit for many years. Ministry of Social Development research found, 'The older the child when they first have contact with the benefit system, the greater their likelihood of leaving benefit. Compared to those in contact at birth, those who first have contact between birth and six months have a 15% increase in the probability of leaving benefit. Between six months and one year there is a 33% increase, between one and two years there is a 41% increase, and first contact between two and three years is associated with a 56% increase in the probability of leaving benefit.' "

"These are the circumstances which are overwhelmingly contributing to New Zealand's child poverty problem."

Truth column Friday May 25

 Last Friday's Truth column:


The alcohol reform debate is boring. New Zealand has been agonising over alcohol since Adam was a boy. Parliament has tried to control its sale and consumption  since the 1800s. Then, lobby groups like the Salvation Army pushed abstinence; today, an alcohol tax hike. Dealing with lives ravaged by alcohol they forget most drinkers do not have a problem. To the contrary. People are now able to enjoy New Zealand-made boutique beers of international quality, visits to vineyards, wine and food festivals and economic benefits - like jobs - that vintners and brewers provide.


Yet all we hear is bad news about 'booze'. Particularly young drinkers. Which is somewhat forgetful of those doing much of the moaning - the middle-aged. Look back to their heyday to find a far worse culture of drink-driving for instance. In 1990, 139 15-24 year-olds affected by alcohol/drugs were involved in fatal crashes. Twenty years later the number had fallen to 54. After-match drinking was chronic and flat 'parties' were frequent. Drunken youth weren't as obvious because the 'Courtenay Places' didn't buzz all night. But young people using and abusing alcohol is no new thing.


Ironically, it is much harder for teenagers to purchase alcohol now than it was in the seventies and eighties yet  lobbyists and legislators still aren't satisfied. Some want the purchase-age put back to twenty, sales from convenience stores banned, trading hours cut and excise lifted.


As parents we want our kids to learn from our mistakes. Unfortunately human nature is such that they need to learn from their own. We hope and pray they survive those mistakes - the vast majority do. And they grow up in the process. But as a country, are we growing up?


Next month parliament will probably raise the purchase-age and impose further restrictions. Yet another exercise in punishing the responsible for the behaviour of the irresponsible. Par for the course in New Zealand I'm afraid. 

Paula Bennett deserves recognition for breaking the mold

Yesterday MSD posted their Statement of Intent for 2012-2015 on-line. The following extract is from the Minister's forward. Now I don't expect readers of this blog to get over-excited. Some of you want no state welfare system at all. But that's not going to happen any time soon. The reason I am copying this is Bennett's willingness to put the facts on the table. This isn't typical Ministerial waffle that, at best, says we must do better. It says the system is a failure and it has to change. And amazingly even the taxpayer gets a mention:

New Zealanders want a welfare system we can be proud of. The system must support people who genuinely can’t support themselves, but those who can work should be available for work and actively looking. Better resources and support to help more people off welfare dependency and into work is a clear priority. The system has failed too many New Zealanders by creating dependence and the Ministry of Social Development is moving towards a more active approach that will see greater support in helping more people off welfare and into work.

Young people are a clear priority within welfare reform. We know that those who go on welfare young tend to stay longer than others and have poorer opportunities as a result. Of real concern are the 16 and 17 year olds who become disengaged from education, employment and training and who are on a collision course with the adult welfare system.

Teen parents also stay longer on benefits than those who become parents at an older age. On average, a teen mother will spend more than seven of the next 10 years on the Domestic Purposes Benefit.

The welfare system has allowed very young people and teen parents to gain access to a benefit, with very little support. We will not continue to fail these young people by handing them a welfare cheque and leaving them to their own devices.

The Ministry of Social Development is engaging with youth service providers who will work with these vulnerable young people in a very new way. Whether or not they receive a benefit, those 16 and 17 year olds and 16–18 year old teen parents at risk of going on or remaining on welfare long term will receive wrap-around support.

Sole parents will also receive much greater support to move into work, as previously this was a group that attracted little work expectation or assistance.

The integrity of the welfare system must be protected and the Ministry of Social Development will continue to improve systems to prevent fraud and abuse of the benefit system. This includes better, faster data matching and getting tougher on those who do abuse the welfare system which is there to support those in genuine need.

These changes are about greater expectations to ensure more New Zealanders participate fully in our economy and society. We are rebalancing the incentives and obligations and ensuring the welfare system is fair to those who use it and those who pay for it.

NZ's comparative risk rating

This morning Don Brash delivered a speech to the Institute of Chartered Accountants on the effects of yesterday's budget. This table appeared in the notes. NZ has the same risk rating as the US.

(I received the speech via e-mail so if anyone wants a copy let me know. It's not up at his website yet.)

Treasury's lack of faith in welfare reforms

Actual and forecast welfare spending: