[lprent: Bad graffiti artist. ]

re: setting up children to fail

Poverty sets children up to fail in a variety of ways, for example:

1) Poverty leads to poor quality housing leads to health problems leads to poor educational outcomes leads to poorly paid jobs leads to poverty.

2) Poverty leads to poor quality food leads to poor nutrition leads to poor health problems and poor educational outcomes …

3) Poverty leads to financial stress preventing full integration into society leads to limited social networks leads to disadvantaged work seeking and access to support services.

4) Poverty leads to financial stress preventing travel leads to disintegration of extended family networks leads to loss of effective role models …

and so on.

I’d totally buy your universal allowance idea. I’d also want policies and legislation to make more flexible employment available, acknowledgement of and space for the wide variety of families and family responsibilities that actually exist in our societies (let’s talk about some amazingly involved cousins, honorary aunts and so on), and access to free relevant supportive education for everyone. That’s just for starters

Anita, see this OECD data.

There is a strong positive relation in a cross-section of twelve OECD countries between the extent of intergenerational earnings mobility and income inequality (Figure 3). In general, the countries with the most equal distribution of income at a given point in time exhibit the highest earnings mobility across generations.

The extent to which income is transmitted varies across countries, although no society is perfectly mobile or immobile: for example, intergenerational earnings mobility is highest in the Nordic countries, Canada and Australia, while it is lowest in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Although no consensus exists on this issue, there seems to be a relation between cross-section income inequality and intergenerational earnings mobility. To promote equality of opportunity might then require reducing current income inequality.

Or try “Moving from rags to riches is harder in more unequal countries”, or this brief article in the Guardian, and see this depressing stuff on income inequality in NZ.

Are you asking in the wider sense? – because in a completely broad all encompassing context NO, It’s not fair. It’s also not a certainty that it will happen. There are many examples of people who have made significant economic progress in either direction. Starting from poverty and ending with wealth and vise a versa. So I don’t quiet see how DPB can be presented as one of the significant mitigations to stop poverty being perpetuated.

I reckon (based on no empirical evidence, any idea where I’d find some?) that children born of wealthy parents are more likely to end up wealthy than those born of middle-income parents. Similarly children of poor parents are more likely to end up poor than the children of middle-income parents.

If that assumption is right then one can make a coherent argument that the DPB, by alleviating the poverty of single parent families (which is, on average, significantly worse than that of two parent families) significantly improves the chances of the children.

Sadly the situation isn’t as simple as I just pretended Intergenerational poverty is complicated by intergenerational poor educational achievement and illiteracy, poorer employment related networks, etc etc. So for many kinds of poverty addressing the other of the issues is just as important as addressing the financial stress.

I think, however, that the DPB is probably a clearer case for financial support making a big difference all by itself. For a start many people on the DPB have relatively high educational achievements, they would have a relatively well paying job if they weren’t sole parenting. Secondly the direct financial disadvantage of a single parent household as compared to a two parent household should be directly addressed.

Awesome comments which deserve a proper reply when I get home this evening!

You must be on magic Mushrooms or seriously politically deluded if you think a speech writer for Ruth Dyson would write that speech without knowing the current direction in which she wants to take her Social Engineering plans.

Firstly, as someone who has worked in the public Service, I am absolutely sure it is possible for a public servant to write a speech without knowing what the Minister thinks.

Secondly, the point I made was that your comment was inaccurate (again). I made no comment on Dyson or the speech.

Thirdly, the insult is unnecessary IMHO – I play a pretty clean game here, it would be polite to do the same in return.

Finally, if I were to respond to your second paragraph it would be to ask for references (again) it looks grossly inaccurate (again).

There is a subtle but crucial difference between what Savage wrote (“anyone who states that they are ‘pro-family’ “) and what you responded to (“being pro-family”).

I think Savage was referring to ProFamily™ which is a phrase that is often used to disguise the type of hatred and bigotry described.

A bit like HardworkingKiwi™ or MainstreamNZ™ – they’re largely meaningless terms which could, if used literally, be applied to almost anyone. However they’re almost never actually used literally. They are used to exclude a secondary group from the definition, not to describe the primary group.

You must be on magic Mushrooms or seriously politically deluded if you think a speech writer for Ruth Dyson would write that speech without knowing the current direction in which she wants to take her Social Engineering plans.

Why is it you are prepared to accept barefaced lies from Helen & Heather Simpson if National did something like this and pulled it off their website within 2 hours of being questioned about it you would be all over it.

The shame is they are fooling no one everyone can see through it for the lie that it is. Just look around some other blogs and listen to the Radio it has damaged Labour people dont like their Social Engineering and legalising their perversions for their mates

[lprent: Anita has been asking you to provide references - ie links. Quotes (even if accurate) are often meaningless when partially quoted. The best way is to have the link to as close to the source as possible. The press releases like the ones you have been quoting from are almost always up in seek.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4651706a6479.html
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4653465a11.html
That took 3 minutes to do.

Don't insult other people as you did above just because you cannot support your own argument. ]

Am I not the only one who takes issue with that comment?

[lprent: I was a bit flummoxed when I saw it. Ruth was a solo mother from what I remember. You usually have to be a parent and do parenting to raise kids?]

Whoa dude I don’t have many prejudices but I consider anyone who thinks that being pro-family is actually saying that they are anti-gay, pro-life, gun-collecting, bible-bashing, ultra right, rabid and logic-free – Is actually an anti-heterosexual, pro-abortion, religion hating, ultra left, tree hugging nutbar.

Oh and apparently you are a misogynist to boot …

[lprent: Please restrain yourself - too many grumpy people around this morning. ]

“Anita, the Israelities in Exodus, with their strong solidarity, knew that good and evil affected whole families, not just individuals.”

Whoa dude.

Not that I have many prejudices but… I consider anyone who states that they are ‘pro-family’ is actually saying they are anti-gay, pro-life, gun-collecting, bible-bashing, ultra right, rabid and logic-free individuals.

On the same note I really despise Christine Rankin. Sorry to go off topic but she sure is one power dressing haircut with an opinion and over-sized earrings to boot.