Fluff and a Jab

16 comments on “Fluff and a Jab ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ianupnorth 1

   16 June 2011 at 1:45 pm

   See http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/thepoorpaymore2009.pdf – yes I know it isn’t Kiwi, but the picture is exactly the same.

   Just consider the first two strategies they suggest

   Raise the Economic Status of the Poor by—
   Increasing the Minimum Wage
   Extending Coverage and Improving Usability of the Earned Income Tax Credit
   Ensuring Access to High Quality Child Care

   Invest in Early Childhood and in Education by–
   Investing in Early Learning Opportunities
   Ensuring Continuity of Educational Opportunity to Increase Graduation Rates
   Increasing Availability of Education, Training, and Employment Programs for Poor Adults
    
   The insulation scheme is a real opportunity missed; we have lots of people needing training, we have lots of natural resources (e.g. sunshine, wind, etc), so we should be leading the world in renewable strategies and investing in our future, not looking at coal out of the ground as a saviour.
   • VanHuizen 1.1

     16 June 2011 at 10:06 pm

     Context is everything; that report is irrelevant to our situation.
2. Nick K 2

   16 June 2011 at 1:56 pm

   According to social researchers, the gap between rich and poor can lead to a raft of societal problems.

   I’ve never believed that on its own. For example, if the poorest person in society was worth a million, but the richest was worth a billion (Ceteris paribus), how does that lead to a societal problem?

   So there are a raft of other factors that influence this, not only the perceived “gap”.
   • ianupnorth 2.1

     16 June 2011 at 2:19 pm

     Read the above report; if you are in poverty there is a stigma; if you are poor you generally live in an area that has less; the teachers and schools are often worse, so your educational attainment in likely to be reduced. if you live in a poor area you are less likely to have access to quality food, quality services, etc.
      
     When you add these up together the cards are very heavily stacked. You could also try google and search ‘the inverse care law’ – by a Dr. Tudor-Hart from the 70’s – it isn’t rocket science, but this government refuses to accept the proof.
      
     Another interesting piece is the Black Report….
     • ianmac 2.1.1

       16 June 2011 at 3:18 pm

       ianupnorth :”the teachers and schools are often worse.”
       Cannot agree with that. The teachers in poorer schools are usually very dedicated and tell me that the kids appreciate what is done for them whereas in so called good schools, the kids are often smug, hard to motivate, and easily bored, often because they have been indulged and already experienced the gifts of abundance. The results from such schools appear to be good but often from a background of privilege rather than hard work
       Otherwise agree with what you say and with the pointers from the Jackal.
       • fabregas4 2.1.1.1

         16 June 2011 at 4:20 pm

         ianupnorth

         I was, I humbly state, a well regarded teacher on the North Shore. I moved up north to carry on what I decided to do when I entered teaching – make a real difference. Now I am a well regarded teacher in Northland. Teachers aren’t better or worse up here – they have tougher jobs in some instances that is all. Please stop staying things that aren’t in any way true.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.2

     16 June 2011 at 2:23 pm

     I’ve never believed that on its own.

     No, what you’re actually doing is denying reality. The research doesn’t fit your world view and so you try to discredit it.

     As for your example, if the poorest person was “worth a million” then what you’re really talking about is massive inflation that has left money essentially worthless (which it is anyway).
   • Colonial Viper 2.3

     16 June 2011 at 5:19 pm

     Socioeconomic disparity is largely relative in nature.

     Someone at a firm on $150K a year will always feel disadvantaged or “making do” if he hangs out with the partners who are all on <$1M p.a.

     Of course he will still be able to provide the necessities of life for himself – which is not the case for many of the actual poor in NZ today.
3. ianupnorth 3

   16 June 2011 at 4:33 pm

   OK, I’ll stand corrected, however, it goes without saying that some schools, particularly in rural areas, continue to struggle with recruiting teachers, with limited access to resources that say town schools have (IT, books, competition for sports, Kapa Haka, etc, food,finance, services, etc).
   The attainment rates of a decile 1 school are often quite different from a decile 10 – I guess that’s the point I was making.
   Plus there is the issue of food security and quality of housing – similarly these are problems in rural and/or deprived communities.
4. rosy 4

   16 June 2011 at 4:36 pm

   Bill English goes on to say that the huge difference between the rich and poor of New Zealand can be attributed to a few farmers owning multimillion dollar farms.

   That’s interesting… he understands higher averages in terms of his misleading statement about farms affecting housing costs, but not when he’s talking about the average wage rising on the back large income increases for high earners.
5. jackal 5

   16 June 2011 at 5:39 pm

   The questioning was about inequality, not just housing costs. Although that is a significant factor. Your highlighting the fact that National Politicians often like to pick and choose what facts to believe and present. Bill English clearly blamed inequality on rich farmers in this instance. We could also ascribe the negative dynamic to overpaid politicians as well.

   It’s not particularly helpful of him to just say inequality only exists because there’s extremely rich people in New Zealand. As Metiria pointed out; 10% of the population owns 500 times more than the poorest 10%, but inequality predominantly exists because there are really really poor people. Bill English is just trying to deny that the problem exists.
6. feijoa 6

   16 June 2011 at 5:43 pm

   My understanding is that in terms of crime, it is not poverty per se which is the cause, but the gap between rich and poor, which is associated with a high crime rate. I believe this is well researched, but cannot tell you by who. So to aim for a fairer society sounds good to me
7. wawot 7

   17 June 2011 at 9:59 am

   “…putting home ownership out of reach of most New Zealander’s”

   According to the last census 67% of homes were owned by their occupants. Therefore home ownership is not out of reach of “most New Zealander’s”.

   In 1936 half of the houses were owned by their occupants – presumably then 1935 was the last time you could honestly say home ownership was “out of reach of most New Zealander’s”
   • jackal 7.1

     17 June 2011 at 11:55 am

     That’s a very simple deduction process you’re using there wawot. Median yearly income for all people from all sources for the June 2010 quarter was $27,508.

     The average house price this year is $429,249. If you’re trying to say that a person can afford to purchase a house on an income of $27,508 per year you’re clearly mistaken. Most Kiwi’s cannot afford to purchase a house these days, it is very different to saying Kiwi’s don’t own houses. New Zealander’s owning their own homes has been falling because of the negative impacts from the housing bubble and speculation, not to mention the Governments failure to remedy the problem.

     Another interesting fact is that the median weekly income from all sources for females was $426, and $675 for males in 2010. Would you like some sexism with that?
   • jackal 7.2

     17 June 2011 at 12:53 pm

     The last census done in 2006 found that 54.5% of houses were owned or partially owned by their occupants btw. Where did you get the 67% from? I’m not privy to the percentage of New Zealand residents who own those houses and how many are owned by foreigners residing in this country. However the “out of reach” part of the statement implies that I’m talking about Kiwi’s that don’t already own a house. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.
8. ZeeBop 8

   17 June 2011 at 11:10 am

   Rampant proto fascism that was all too accepted and condoned under Labour (who pushed to the right leaving National with no where to go but further right) is now a huge weight around National neck. Its joyous to seen the cockroaches run around trying to find darkness. They even had to wheel out Douglas to say something astonishingly stupid, that in any other Democracy would have demanded he provide his analysis, explain how something that hasn’t happen yet should abolish existing law and improvise an already naturally marginalized group further. But to cap it off its pretty damn obvious that a kid who learns his dads trade, should be able to command the full wages. And that a young athlete who is capable of out performing a manual job compared to a forty year old should receive at least the same wages.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS