Lifestyle “choices”

Written By: - Date published: 3:58 pm, June 6th, 2012 - 192 comments
Categories: benefits, families - Tags: ,

In the lead up to last year’s budget John Key said that the poor and those on benefits had made lifestyle choices.  If they budgeted properly, they’d be fine.

But things aren’t fine, and they’re getting worse in John Key’s New Zealand.

Which is why a 40-yr-old DPB Mum in Christchurch – facing an $80/week rent increase, because John hasn’t done anything about Christchurch’s housing shortage – has had to resort to the lifestyle “choice” of prostitution.

Sarah receives $660 on the domestic purposes benefit each week, and in September her rent will increase to $440.

The rise will leave her with $220 a week to pay for power, basic bills and food.

She’s been hunting for somewhere cheaper:

One rental she viewed had no hot water and the landlord told her she could shower her children at Jellie Park, while other open homes had left her disheartened when people started offering more money than that advertised.

And there’s nowhere cheaper as she’s competing with

a family of 30 living in a five-bedroom house, a family of eight living in a garage, families sleeping in cars and a man who has pitched a tent in a burned-down, red-zoned home.

As Christchurch is hit by winter snow, and wanting to keep a roof over her two young children’s heads and shoes on their feet, means there’s no “choice” available.  So:

While her children are at primary school, she closes their bedroom doors and entertains clients in the family home.

“If I could stop, I would,” she said.

“I am putting my life on the line by doing this but I am doing it for my kids, just to feed them and provide basic daily living for us.”

192 comments on “Lifestyle “choices” ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lanthanide 1
    6 June 2012 at 4:23 pm

    I have a real problem with her claim that there is ‘nowhere cheaper’ available.

    There are definitely cheaper places available, but they may not be in the location she wants.

    • Newt 1.1
      6 June 2012 at 4:46 pm

      There are cheaper places available. And they generally not good places to raise a family, or she would have to take the kids away from thier school and friends to the other side of the city, or they are – as noted – lacking hot water or other basic facilities, or she is being outbid…

    • Bill 1.2
      6 June 2012 at 4:51 pm

      Sure Lanthanide,cause for poor people housing is all about location, location, location. Sheesh. Best a poor person can do is go on the angle “Anywhere. But shit no. Not that location.”…and that usually for very, very good reason.

  2. Draco T Bastard 2
    6 June 2012 at 4:27 pm

    You missed the bit which is most important:

    “Landlords are taking advantage of the situation and are increasing the rent just for the sake of it,” she said.

    Greed driven free-market ideology trumps caring for the community.

  3. lprent 3
    6 June 2012 at 4:56 pm

    Yep. But the choice is often about the trade-off between location and gas prices. I’ve had a look at this a few times myself around Auckland and it ain’t pretty….

    Up here in Auckland I can get a rentals at about 2/3rds of Grey Lynn in somewhere like Ranui or the far outskirts of Mt Roskill. But I’ll also have to fill up the car at least once a week (currently once every 6 weeks) to get to work with an extra hour and a half added to the daily commute (currently 5 minutes each way) or have a hell of time with jumping several buses and/or trains and a 3 hour daily commute. A tank is about $110 at present, so assuming I only fill it once a week that’d be about an extra $476 per month plus all of the extra maintenance work on the car.

    Alternatively you can get a smaller living space at a place that is more convenient to work. $440 these days will get a one bedroom apartment in the city fringe like Grey Lynn. It won’t stretch to a 2 bedroom. You might get lucky and find a 3 bedroom out past Mt Roskill.

    Why am I emphasising work?

    Because that is what Paula Bennett and this government want people on the DPB to do as early as possible. In fact they are mandating it in their usual manner of bashing beneficeries when they are no jobs. So people who are too poor to run a car for commuting to work have a choice of high rents close to places where they can find work or impossible commutes that cost more than they will get paid…. And that includes many people currently on benefits..

    Think it through. People on low incomes like the DPB who are required to work have a *lot* less flexibility than I have because they have problems paying the $300 odd annual tax for a car registration. But the one time I ever looked at the jobs in the local WINZ with someone, virtually all of them required a long commute. In fact longer than I’d normally tolerate.

    BTW: I have no idea what it is like in ChCh with the destroyed housing. But up here rents around the city fringe have kicked up by about 20-25% over the last year for people moving into a new place.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.1
      6 June 2012 at 5:23 pm

      Going to work is expensive if the work isn’t local. If you’re poor, that actually means that you can’t afford to go to work if it isn’t local. Present economic conditions make finding local work hard.

    • Vicky32 3.2
      6 June 2012 at 5:42 pm

      But the one time I ever looked at the jobs in the local WINZ with someone, virtually all of them required a long commute. In fact longer than I’d normally tolerate.

      Oh yes! When I queried once being sent to a job in Onehunga (from Pt Chev) the WINZ woman told me angrily that she drives for half an hour every day to get to work. Nice for her – as I’d have had to get several buses! In fact, I’d never have been able to get to the job on time even if I had got the job, as buses don’t start running until 6.30 and I’d have had to start my Onehunga commute earlier than that…

      Some suburbs are simply un-gettable-to by public transport.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1
        6 June 2012 at 5:48 pm

        When I queried once being sent to a job in Onehunga (from Pt Chev) the WINZ woman told me angrily that she drives for half an hour every day to get to work.

        Only half an hour? Sheesh. My flatmate has been driving for 3 hours some nights just to get home.

        • Rob 3.2.1.1
          7 June 2012 at 8:52 am

          No its all Ok as we will have a central rail loop soon that will fix all these issues.

          Pt Chev to Onehunga you say…..sheeeeeesh.

      • David H 3.2.2
        7 June 2012 at 10:16 pm

        Thats why I like Levin can walk every where important in 10 mins .

  4. chris73 4
    6 June 2012 at 5:14 pm

    I’d probably have more sympathy for her if she didn’t get more money per week then I do

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      6 June 2012 at 5:20 pm

      And you’re a single parent with kids to look after?

      • chris73 4.1.1
        6 June 2012 at 5:27 pm

        Nope but it still doesn’t change the fact she takes home more then I do

        • Zorr 4.1.1.1
          6 June 2012 at 5:31 pm

          Shouldn’t your anger then be directed at the government that is suppressing wage growth and making sure that your income remains low?

          • chris73 4.1.1.1.1
            6 June 2012 at 5:34 pm

            I’m not angry about my wage, I’m angry that someone getting a decent amount of money already is resorting to emotional blackmail because things are a bit tight

            • McFlock 4.1.1.1.1.1
              6 June 2012 at 5:42 pm

              I’m mildly irked that you refer to raising 2 kids on $220/wk after housing costs, in winter, as being “a bit tight”.

              The income simply doesn’t cut it.

              • chris73 …
                6 June 2012 at 5:48 pm

                Maybe not but the $660 she gets does, where she chooses to live is up to her

                • McFlock …
                  6 June 2012 at 5:50 pm

                  Ah – you obviously missed the bit where she was talking about looking for new places, and how they were a glorious combination of shitty (actually illegal) and expensive.

                  • chris73 …
                    6 June 2012 at 6:00 pm

                    Her rent increase doesn’t actually happen until September but that aside I’d like more information before deciding that what she says is 100% correct not that I’m suggesting the media might paint this situation for their own benefit

                    • McFlock …
                      6 June 2012 at 9:06 pm

                      Is it out of kilter with anything else you’ve read about DPB or the Christchurch accommodation market?

                      Does it pass your initial bullshit filter? If not, why not?

                    • rosy …
                      7 June 2012 at 1:07 am

                      So what do you think about the families the Press knows about but did not interview?
                      – the family of 30 living in a five-bedroom house
                      – the a family of eight living in a garage
                      – families sleeping in cars
                      – the man who has pitched a tent in a burned-down, red-zoned home.

        • Kaplan 4.1.1.2
          6 June 2012 at 5:32 pm

          True, it doesn’t change that single fact, but it does make it completely irrelevant. Well done.

          • chris73 4.1.1.2.1
            6 June 2012 at 5:36 pm

            No I don’t think it is irrelevant

            • mike e 4.1.1.2.1.1
              6 June 2012 at 6:09 pm

              chris Ive had three children of my own one adopted more than a12 foster children the cost of bringing up children is more expensive than ever you can’t be serious about being jealous of some one with children earning more than you . Their outgoings will be 3 times more than you at the very least as children require more food than adult and need new cloths and shoes on a regular basis as they are growing so fast.

              • chris73 …
                6 June 2012 at 6:18 pm

                I have no doubt you’re sincere but I feel (as stated above) that shes using emotional blackmail to try to improve her lot and good on her for trying it on but it doesn’t mean we all have to accept at face value what she says

                and to me something smells fishy

                • felix …
                  6 June 2012 at 6:25 pm

                  So now your complaint is that she’s using emotional blackmail.

                  Are you no longer bothered by her getting more money than you do to raise the kids you don’t have?

                  • chris73 …
                    6 June 2012 at 6:39 pm

                    No no let me clarify, I’m annoyed (yet oddly pleasantly surprised) that she gets more money then me (shows that National isn’t evil) but angry (yet I doff my hat to her) for attempting emotional blackmail

                    • felix …
                      6 June 2012 at 6:49 pm

                      How does it show “National isn’t evil”? The salient fact is she doesn’t have enough to support her kids without going on the game.

                      How much you make in relation to her is neither here nor there in assessing the evil of it chris.

            • felix 4.1.1.2.1.2
              6 June 2012 at 6:21 pm

              If you don’t think it’s irrelevant then presumably you’d prefer that all people on the DPB were paid the dole instead with no consideration for how many kids they’re bringing up.

              • chris73 …
                6 June 2012 at 6:43 pm

                I would pay a set amount for the first time they go on the dpb based on how many kids they have but I wouldn’t pay for any more kids they have after that

                • felix …
                  6 June 2012 at 6:50 pm

                  …except for this one one woman who you would pay exactly no more than whatever you make regardless of how many kids she has, when she had them, or anything else.

                  • chris73 …
                    6 June 2012 at 7:03 pm

                    No and you’re being a bit naughty

                    • felix …
                      6 June 2012 at 7:33 pm

                      Not at all. Your entire argument in this thread has been that she shouldn’t get so much money to raise her kids because it’s more than what you get.

                      If you’d like to go back on that, go ahead and say so.

        • McFlock 4.1.1.3
          6 June 2012 at 5:41 pm

          Funnily enough, she makes more money than me, too.
          But then I don’t have kids.
          So can live in a smaller place.
          And I’m not too particular about the cold.
          And I can ride a scooter, I don’t need a car.

          So I think I can guarantee that my non-discretionary expenses are far lower than hers.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.4
          6 June 2012 at 5:44 pm

          That would be because she needs more than you do.

          • McFlock 4.1.1.4.1
            6 June 2012 at 5:46 pm

            “That would be because she and her children need more than you do.”

            Just to really spell it out for angry chris.

  5. Vicky32 5
    6 June 2012 at 5:44 pm

    Funnily enough, she makes more money than me, too.

    Me too, but then I don’t have children to look after! Chris, you’re being stupid.

    • chris73 5.1
      6 June 2012 at 5:50 pm

      No I’m not, you are being played like a puppet on a string

      • McFlock 5.1.1
        6 June 2012 at 5:52 pm

        Oh, so you’re just pretending to be stupid.

        Excellent pretense, sir. Have you ever tried playing someone who wasn’t an idiot?

        • chris73 5.1.1.1
          6 June 2012 at 6:03 pm

          Well my good fellow I would suggest that you may find the present discourse a tad more illuminating if you were to remove your rose-tinted spectacles

          • Puddleglum 5.1.1.1.1
            6 June 2012 at 7:38 pm

            chris73,

            Is it the simple fact that she has appeared in the media that makes you suspicious?

            If so, if she had not appeared in the media but been in the circumstances described, would you be sympathetic to her situation? (Assuming you knew about it through some other means.)

            • chris73 5.1.1.1.1.1
              6 June 2012 at 8:14 pm

              Is it the simple fact that she has appeared in the media that makes you suspicious?

              – Unfortunately yes, chequebook journalism, the need to sell papers etc etc does make me look at a story and think whats the angle and in this case its emotional blackmail

              If so, if she had not appeared in the media but been in the circumstances described, would you be sympathetic to her situation? (Assuming you knew about it through some other means.)

              – I don’t know because at the moment shes getting $660 which seems to me a decent amount of money when you don’t have to go out to work to earn it and her rents not being put up until September

              I mean the question I’d like the journalist filing this story to ask is prostitution her only option because I don’t think it is

              • vto …
                6 June 2012 at 8:35 pm

                Chris, having just read the above thread I can’t work out what you are annoyed about.

                Tell me – have you ever earned more than you earn now?

              • felix …
                6 June 2012 at 8:36 pm

                “chequebook journalism”

                Are you saying she must have been paid for her story? Wow, the National Smear Unit is working overtime tonight, eh?

                “I don’t know because at the moment shes getting $660 which seems to me a decent amount of money when you don’t have to go out to work to earn it”

                You mean it seems like it would be a decent amount of money for you, as long as you didn’t have to spend it on raising two kids on your own.

                • burt …
                  6 June 2012 at 11:26 pm

                  felix

                  $660 is a lot of money. Earned or not – it’s still a lot of money to receive each week. Most ‘earners’ I know would love an additional $660/week. Hell I would. I don’t care how you count her expenses and stack them up against what she earns, $660/week is still a lot of money. It’s $34,320 after tax is basically a $40,000 salary which is more than full time minimum wage. I wonder how many people with 2 kids earning minimum wage know they are better off on the DPB? No need to worry about sick leave, holidays or needing to work around the kids…. why aren’t all woman onto this? – Dooh.

                  • Zorr …
                    7 June 2012 at 2:26 am

                    It is NOT an ADDITIONAL $660/wk – it was the ONLY money she was receiving until she lay down and spread her legs for cash. It is very difficult to survive on what WINZ gives you and though I feel I could possibly spread the cash a little better, I do know that ultimately I would be in the same situation without resorting to picking up cash on the side.

                    There is never any money for unexpected costs or even the expected costs like petrol, WOFs, doctors/dentists and even public transport can be a massive stretch some weeks.

                    Hands up if you want to contribute to the poverty trap in NZ? Oh… I said hands up burt, no need to go shoving your head that far up your rectum…

                  • felix …
                    7 June 2012 at 5:43 am

                    That’s very dishonest of you burt. You know very well that a single person raising two kids on minimum wage is also getting WFF.

                    • Dan …
                      7 June 2012 at 1:45 pm

                      Surely the father of the children is also relevant in this? What is he doing to help support his children? Unless he’s dead (and sadly that’s a possibility given the circumstances) he’s culpable for support.

                      If he’s not dead and it just turns out that the father is one of the many feckless arseholes that populate this country with children because they like to stick their dick in anything that will have them then the mother has to take some responsibility for her, and her childrens, circumstances.

                    • felix …
                      8 June 2012 at 3:08 am

                      Interesting.

                      At first glance a reader could be mistaken for thinking you believed fathers should bear some responsibility for their actions.

                      That’s not what you’re saying at all though, is it? You’re actually saying that if they don’t that’s the fault of the mother.

                      Nice one, Dan.

  6. Jimmie 6
    6 June 2012 at 6:30 pm

    Someone mentioned that when you search trademe for rentals in Christchurch there are a large number available a lot cheaper than what she is currently paying.
    They can’t all be old crapped out houses with no services surely.

    The thing I don’t get is her crying a river over prostitution? She is obviously experienced at the game (it says that she is going back to it) and it is no longer is illegal.

    Or does she think that people still think of prostitution as a profession of last resort?

    As for inviting clients home during school hours why doesn’t she hook up with old contacts and find a bed in a brothel she could use? More hygienic and safer.

    The question I would ask is – Is she declaring her earnings or is all going in the back pocket?

    Chances are the answer would be no as that would cause her benefit to be cut.

    There isn’t something quite right about this story.

    Also why can’t she take in a boarder to help share the rent costs?

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1
      6 June 2012 at 6:37 pm

      Also why can’t she take in a boarder to help share the rent costs?

      Did you note the fact that she has children?

    • Jeremy Connell 6.2
      6 June 2012 at 9:28 pm

      Exactly right, way beyond her means, unbelievably lame, and a bad example to the kids.

  7. tsmithfield 7
    6 June 2012 at 6:47 pm

    Why is this woman making a big deal about prostitution? Its a legitimate profession now. So, why should resorting to prostitution to earn a few extra bucks be any worse than resorting to getting a job at the supermarket to do the same?

    • felix 7.1
      6 June 2012 at 7:01 pm

      Not a very good tr0ll. Obvious, facile and just as easy to ignore as to refute.

      • tsmithfield 7.1.1
        6 June 2012 at 7:08 pm

        It just seems to raise an interesting tension.

        On one hand prostitution has been legalised, and I here people from the prostitutes collective who seem to argue that it is at least approaching a legitimate occupation. On the other hand, people still seem to perceive it as something degrading. So, despite the endevour to mainstream prostitution, it still seems to be viewed as something seedy, even by some involved with it.

        So, will the PC brigade ever overcome the perception of prostitution as seedy, and normalise it?

        • felix 7.1.1.1
          6 June 2012 at 7:34 pm

          It’s only an interesting tension if you pretend to understand none of the issues around it.

          Hence “0bvious tr0ll is 0bvious”.

    • Fortran 7.2
      7 June 2012 at 10:25 am

      tsmithfield

      I assume that if she went out “legally earning” she would have to pay tax on the earnings and advise Winz ?

    • mike e 7.3
      7 June 2012 at 9:36 pm

      The only clients that can afford these services would be mainly better off right whingers

  8. TightyRighty 8
    6 June 2012 at 6:50 pm

    Yeah, I feel for the lady, and those in similar situations in Christchurch. My dealings with even people on reasonable incomes is showing that there is a serious problem with reasonable quality and reasonably priced rentals in Christchurch. While there is a strong case to be made here for rent relief payments, it will only exacerbate the situation as landlords know then they will get paid for almost whatever they charge. As the housing stock starts to replenish, this situation will right itself. And landlords that have price gouged will be found out. Far better to have temporary subsidised or free public transport to outlying areas where the rent is more reasonable to enable people to move about freely while keeping within budget. If wealthy people don’t mind the commute from Rangiora, it can’t hurt those on more moderate incomes.

    • felix 8.1
      6 June 2012 at 6:57 pm

      “Far better to have temporary subsidised or free public transport to outlying areas where the rent is more reasonable”

      Yep, and even better would be temporary subsidised or free public housing.

      How long did it take in Japan again? A month,wasn’t it?

      • TightyRighty 8.1.1
        6 June 2012 at 8:05 pm

        Yes Felix, of course the solution is free housing. How is that going to be provided in such a short space of time? Japan did it in a month? How many people live in Japan? Also, do these people move out when the free period ends? Or are we to expect even more people relying excessively on the welfare system. Your such a fucking moron that you can’t even see the elegance of a simple solution that kills so many birds with an already existing stone because the government should just provide something that currently doesn’t even exist. Farking muppett

        • felix 8.1.1.1
          6 June 2012 at 8:27 pm

          Don’t be a silly goose, Tighty. Of course there are more people in Japan, but the scale of their disaster was much greater too.

          15,000 dead.
          27,000 injured.
          400,000 buildings destroyed.
          Dams and nuclear reactors fucked, oil refineries on fire.

          Yet they were able to provide temporary housing where needed and we weren’t.

          I like your transport idea, but it shouldn’t even be needed and if the govt had done their job it wouldn’t be an issue.

      • Murray Olsen 8.1.2
        6 June 2012 at 8:28 pm

        The private sector is crap at supplying decent and affordable rental accomodation even without an emergency. This is the perfect time for the state to step in and the only reason they won’t is ideological. The old Ministry of Works could have thrown up reasonable accomodation in a month or two; this government pays Jenny Shipley a per diem of $1000 and leaves everything to the market except for passing a law that gives a woodwork teacher imperial powers.

      • burt 8.1.3
        6 June 2012 at 11:44 pm

        felix

        How long did it take in Japan again? A month,wasn’t it?

        I searched to see what I could find about the way Japan went about housing and alarmingly I found scant detail. Can you provide a link or two that details what they did.

    • tsmithfield 8.2
      6 June 2012 at 7:01 pm

      Seems to me there needs to be more done to help the supply side. Controlling prices won’t work because it will result in shortages. Pulling finger to get state houses repaired would be a good start.

      • burt 8.2.1
        7 June 2012 at 12:05 am

        Paying the cost of removal companies to shift them to other areas would seem like an option that would benefit some as well. One size won’t fit all.

        Standing around shouting for the government to do more for you is a relatively recent human phenomenon, the old fashion options of moving to areas where resources are more plentiful is often a good one.

        • McFlock 8.2.1.1
          7 June 2012 at 12:24 am

          the old fashion options of moving to areas where resources are more plentiful is often a good one.

          Yep. You jack off to John Steinbeck novels, dontcha.

          • burt 8.2.1.1.1
            7 June 2012 at 11:16 pm

            McFlock

            Hell dude people have been shifting for economic reasons as long as we have had economics as a tag to classify general supply and demand. Before that they moved for food, water, space, seasons, followed migrations – etc.

            Look if you don’t have a job and only have two kids then what the hell is forcing her to live in a rental shortage area. Really think about it, if she had said in her ‘moment of stardom’ that she had commitments that forced her to live where she lived then the discussion would be different. As it stands all I see is tough decisions being made to maintain a status quo – millions of people do that everyday.

            Whoop whoop, you’re doing a job you would rather not do so you don’t have to move. Yeah yeah play the moral angle and get an ‘ohhhh, ahhhh, ewwwe from the readers. Gutter press and you lot are taking the bait hook line and sinker.

            • McFlock 8.2.1.1.1.1
              8 June 2012 at 1:50 pm

              Funny thing is, maybe due to her limited budget she doesn’t actually have the relocation costs. Moving house, even within a city, isn’t free. And of course the only reason that the rental prices are through the roof in chch is because National fucked up the earthquake recovery.     
                      

              And again, stacking shelves might be “a job you’d rather not do”. Having cocks in you when you’d “rather not do” that is a different level – a distinction that you seem incapable of understanding. 

            • Puddleglum 8.2.1.1.1.2
              8 June 2012 at 2:22 pm

              “Hell dude people have been shifting for economic reasons as long as we have had economics as a tag to classify general supply and demand. Before that they moved for food, water, space, seasons, followed migrations – etc.”

              Hi burt,

              Throughout most of human history/prehistory those movements were of groups of humans not individuals (or even individual ‘families’). That is, the social structures and processes (i.e., the ‘community’) moved as one.

              Moving as an individual (family) represents quite a dramatic change in the consequences of “shifting for economic reasons”. Particularly the social, developmental and psychological consequences.

              Edit: Perhaps I should have just said ‘prehistory’. You’re right that throughout history individuals and families have often moved in more isolated and ‘individual’ ways (through unsystematic purges, oppression, etc.), but usually with the same dire consequences socially and psychologically as I’ve just argued.

  9. chris73 9
    6 June 2012 at 7:06 pm

    “How does it show “National isn’t evil”? The salient fact is she doesn’t have enough to support her kids without going on the game.

    How much you make in relation to her is neither here nor there in assessing the evil of it chris.”

    It shows National isn’t evil because theres getting a decent amount of money to live on. The salient fact is she can’t manage the money she gets so giving her more isn’t going to help until she deals with the main problem

    • Jackal 9.1
      6 June 2012 at 7:25 pm

      How exactly is she meant to deal with the issue of overpriced rentals you rightwing apologist? It’s only a “decent amount of money to live on” if expenses don’t eat up all or more of the income. Do you really think she would resort to prostitution if she was already getting enough money to live on?

      She can’t tell landlords not to increase rents, she cannot tell the government to increase the DPB. You’re only solution is for her to move into a cheaper area, which can be impractical for many reasons. Your argument chris73 is heavy on the rhetoric and light on reality… but what else is new?

    • Draco T Bastard 9.2
      6 June 2012 at 7:26 pm

      It shows National isn’t evil because theres getting a decent amount of money to live on.

      Er, what? She doesn’t get enough to live on. That was the whole point.

      The salient fact is she can’t manage the money she gets so giving her more isn’t going to help until she deals with the main problem

      And that sentence just shows your prejudice.

    • felix 9.3
      6 June 2012 at 7:37 pm

      No chris, all you’ve shown is that you think it would be a decent amount for you to live on.

    • fatty 9.4
      6 June 2012 at 7:39 pm

      “…until she deals with the main problem”

      you mean its her responsibility as an individual? …and the actions of others, or the structure of the system is not up for discussion?

      its amusing how some consider the act of economic violence is OK and somehow ethical, and the ‘incompetent’ victims of our monetary systems need to take more responsibility.
      Its as illogical and evil as changing our law so physical violence is OK, and that victims of physical violence must take more responsibility to protect themselves…
      after all chris73…we all know how to avoid a block of wood to the head right? …its not the thugs fault that other people might be old, weak, or slow?

    • bbfloyd 9.5
      6 June 2012 at 8:18 pm

      I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone managing to be so foolish on so many different levels…. That’s slightly disquieting…..But then you make up for scaring me like that by arguing from such a small minded perspective……..I suggest you either raise, or lower the dosages…..

  10. TheContrarian 10
    6 June 2012 at 7:37 pm

    Is she paying tax on her earnings I wonder?

    • Puddleglum 10.1
      6 June 2012 at 8:51 pm

      Apart from the possibility that you are insinuating something about her character – and so mounting an ad hominem attack on her claims that $660 per week is insufficient (both now and, more so, after September) for her and her family to live on given the current rental market in Christchurch – what else caused you to ‘wonder’ in this particular way?

    • Murray Olsen 10.2
      7 June 2012 at 10:19 pm

      Next time you visit her, ask. How the hell would anyone here know?

  11. Old Tony 11
    6 June 2012 at 7:49 pm

    Whether considered relatively or absolutely $660 per week is enough for a woman raising two kids to take home when that income is not earned but provided by the generosity of others. Any more than that would be an abomination and place her in a position of advantage relative to the working poor. The choices available to her to balance her budget include moving to a town with cheaper rents, something rendered much easier by the fact she does not need to work.

    • felix 11.1
      6 June 2012 at 8:06 pm

      What do you mean “the generosity of others”?

    • fatty 11.2
      6 June 2012 at 8:08 pm

      they’re all coming out of the woodwork today…

      “Any more than that would be an abomination and place her in a position of advantage relative to the working poor”

      I like the way you have exposed how our system is a failure by highlighting the fact that we have “working poor”, but rather than considering that issue, you have applied some old-testament, judgemental, stigmatizing ignorance that leaves you looking like a stupid and selfish arse.
      If you think protecting children in our society from poverty via tax is an act of “generosity”…then you are a burden on society. That so called “generosity” is a form of protection against the greedy people who own too many houses and sit on piles of money. It is not an act of “generosity” at all.
      Try turning off radiolive.

      • Old Tony 11.2.1
        6 June 2012 at 8:18 pm

        So a solution to “working poor” is to share what little we collectively we have in disproportionate amounts among the “non-working poor”? Good logic fatty.

        Of course it is an act of generosity. At best that, and at worst an act of state-sponsored theft. Personally I am supportive enough of the welfare state to regard it as the former. But I note that you prefer the latter description because fundamentally you are motivated by envy. Hardly a surprise.

        • felix 11.2.1.1
          6 June 2012 at 8:30 pm

          It’s not generosity, it’s the price we pay to live in a society.

          It’s no more generosity than buying milk is generosity to Fonterra.

          • Old Tony 11.2.1.1.1
            6 June 2012 at 8:38 pm

            Actually I can accept that, although I am not sure I am getting the analogy with buying milk.

            • felix 11.2.1.1.1.1
              6 June 2012 at 8:41 pm

              You pays some money, you gets something in return. Wasn’t any more to it than that.

        • fatty 11.2.1.2
          6 June 2012 at 8:36 pm

          “So a solution to “working poor” is to share what little we collectively we have in disproportionate amounts among the “non-working poor”? Good logic fatty.”

          There’s a lot to go around, there’s plenty. Its just that there are the greedy people who own multiple houses and are forcing others into poverty. Poverty is created by our rich people. Its very logical.

          “Of course it is an act of generosity”

          No, it just feels like generosity if you believe that poverty inducing greed is ethical/normal. I’m not a fan of the welfare state…its better than nothing, but I see it as society giving first aid to people after society has first punched them in the face

          “But I note that you prefer the latter description because fundamentally you are motivated by envy. Hardly a surprise.”

          Not even close, I think you will find the greed is motivated by envy. I dunno what equality is motivated by? have another go

          • Draco T Bastard 11.2.1.2.1
            6 June 2012 at 9:14 pm

            Equality is motivated by morality.

          • Jackal 11.2.1.2.2
            6 June 2012 at 10:32 pm

            Conclusion: Paying somebody who is unemployed enough to meet the increase in their costs is not an abomination because there are working poor. The working poor also require welfare to meet their costs, which is effectively the state subsidizing wages so that private corporations can maximise their profits. Having a low waged economy creates social dysfunction and resentment by those who are not reimbursed properly for their work towards the unemployed. The inequality of wages and benefits not meeting basic necessities is a result of greed and a fundamentally flawed neo-liberal agenda.

        • Murray Olsen 11.2.1.3
          6 June 2012 at 8:42 pm

          How about an act of generosity by the employers who benefit from the working poor? That lovely company that runs old people’s homes could set a good example here. What the fuck would I be envious about? Certainly not your intellect that’s so deficient you believe this Randian taxation is theft shit.

        • vto 11.2.1.4
          6 June 2012 at 8:52 pm

          No, Old Tony is right.

          Supporting everyone in society is not a base requirement.

          so what are the base requirements Old Tony?

        • Draco T Bastard 11.2.1.5
          6 June 2012 at 9:12 pm

          The only theft going on is that of the rich stealing from everyone else.

    • Draco T Bastard 11.3
      6 June 2012 at 9:11 pm

      The choices available to her to balance her budget include moving to a town with cheaper rents, something rendered much easier by the fact she does not need to work.

      I suspect you have NFI how much it costs to move. In fact, I suspect you’re just talking out your arse like all RWNJs.

      • Populuxe1 11.3.1
        8 June 2012 at 7:55 pm

        Cheaper rents because smaller towns with fewer jobs, far from family and friends, with all of the expenses of setting up again. Tearing the kids away from their school friends. The sheer emotional exhaustion of establishing new social connections in your 40s. etc.
         

  12. tsmithfield 12
    6 June 2012 at 8:00 pm

    This woman seems to contradict herself in one sentence:

    “I am putting my life on the line by doing this but I am doing it for my kids, just to feed them and provide basic daily living for us”

    She is putting her life on the line. So, if she loses her life, she won’t be able to do too much about feeding her kids. Also, she is arguably exposing her kids to danger due to the possibility that some of those she feels in danger from may not limit their visits to the times when her kids are at school.

    As has been pointed out by several above, there are a lot of other choices that don’t involve these sort of risks.

    • TheContrarian 12.1
      6 June 2012 at 8:02 pm

      Sounds like she is relying on what she knows. Still, I hope she is paying tax on any income she earns.

      • felix 12.1.1
        6 June 2012 at 8:03 pm

        What do you mean, TheContrarian?

        • TheContrarian 12.1.1.1
          6 June 2012 at 8:08 pm

          What do I mean by what?

          • bbfloyd 12.1.1.1.1
            6 June 2012 at 8:20 pm

            what do you mean “by what”?….. cont……

          • felix 12.1.1.1.2
            6 June 2012 at 8:28 pm

            What do you mean by the comment I replied to, genius.

            • TheContrarian 12.1.1.1.2.1
              6 June 2012 at 10:15 pm

              I was using the English language in a manner consistent with proper grammatical rules.
              If you want me to expand further you’ll have to advise which particular bit you are having trouble with.

              • felix …
                6 June 2012 at 10:51 pm

                “Sounds like she is relying on what she knows.”

                Please explain.

                • TheContrarian …
                  7 June 2012 at 8:33 am

                  She was formally a prostitute (at least that what you can gather from the article) so she is going back to a job she already knows.
                  Like, if she previously worked at a supermarket it would make sense to go back to a job you already know the in’s and out’s of (heh, mind the pun).

              • Jackal …
                6 June 2012 at 10:55 pm

                People who receive the DPB automatically pay taxes.

                Although the main reason for prostitution law reform was Health and safety requirements, I think it’s likely that one of the reasons prostitution was decriminalized in 2003 was so it could be taxed.

                A brothel is treated as a business, a private worker is treated as self employed. So why do you keep asking the same dumb question about whether she is paying taxes, when there is no reason to ask it?

                • TheContrarian …
                  7 June 2012 at 8:36 am

                  Dumb question? Is she is gaining a secondary income on top of the DPB then I wonder if is she paying all applicable taxes on what she earns over and above her DPB allowance for secondary wages.

                  • Jackal …
                    7 June 2012 at 9:03 am

                    Why exactly do you wonder this? Is it because you have a misconception about sex workers perhaps… or do you also wonder if other people you’ve never met like a part time plumber, race horse breeder, mechanic or nurse who are earning a secondary income are also paying their taxes? You’re baseless dumb pondering is a smear on her credibility TheAppendicularian.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      7 June 2012 at 9:08 am

                      No, because like Draco was wondering about builders who take cash jobs to avoid the tax man on the “We need a CGT NOW!” article (if memory serves correct) I was wondering about the same thing here.

                      (Memory serves incorrect – can’t remember where it was Draco was talking about it)

                    • Uturn …
                      7 June 2012 at 9:09 am

                      I wonder of The Confabularian is paying every tax we can list. I wonder if he is doing something else. Something different to what I can describe. I wonder if he eats chicken sandwiches with tomato sauce. That would be a clumsy food match, but maybe just him going back to what he knows. That would make him bad and bad is not good. And not good means we should do something to him, or think about doing something or maybe frown or think badly of him or something. Yes, I’m glad we had this discussion, it has cleared so much up.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      7 June 2012 at 9:14 am

                      @Uturn – ummm what senseless gibberish is this?

                    • Uturn …
                      7 June 2012 at 9:22 am

                      Just wondering about people I’ve never met, Confabularian. Do you ever do that? Wonder? About stuff? Fill the gaps of memory and experience with anything you can think of? Confabularian? Isn’t wondering wonderful? You can just wander off into a wonderland forever.

                      I wonder what other people are doing? I wonder if they wonder about me? I wonder if I wonder at the same time as they wonder if we somehow meet as one.

                    • felix …
                      7 June 2012 at 9:27 am

                      I wonder if TheContrarian fucks pigs. I’ve heard that some people do. Seen it discussed on this site before, by Billy I think.

                      Of course I’m not trying to make a judgment or smear TheContrarian in any way, but it’s a reasonable thing to wonder, isn’t it?

                    • TheContrarian …
                      7 June 2012 at 9:28 am

                      Perhaps you should have a lie down. I have never judged anyone on this page.

                    • Jackal …
                      7 June 2012 at 9:48 am

                      I wonder if TheUltracrepidarian can smell his own shit? I’ve heard that some people don’t… seen it happen on this site before, by Pete George I think.

                      I wouldn’t judge him either way of course. I was just wondering.

                    • felix …
                      8 June 2012 at 3:03 am

                      Oh sorry TheContrarian, did I say you were judgmental? I meant to merely wonder if you were judgmental.

                      A reasonable thing to wonder, surely, with all these accusations and judgments flying about.

      • tsmithfield 12.1.2
        6 June 2012 at 8:12 pm

        I hope someone gets alongside her and enlightens her to some more sustainable choices.

    • felix 12.2
      6 June 2012 at 8:02 pm

      You’re right Tarquin, it sounds like an absolutely fucked up situation to be in.

    • Draco T Bastard 12.3
      6 June 2012 at 9:17 pm

      As has been pointed out by several above, there are a lot of other choices that don’t involve these sort of risks.

      We’re in a recession (about to drop into a proper depression) and she’s living in Christchurch so, no, there aren’t a lot of other choices.

    • Blue 12.4
      6 June 2012 at 9:43 pm

      You contradict yourself in one thread, tsmithfield. Upthread you said:

      “Why is this woman making a big deal about prostitution? Its a legitimate profession now. So, why should resorting to prostitution to earn a few extra bucks be any worse than resorting to getting a job at the supermarket to do the same?”

      Now you are saying:

      “She is putting her life on the line. So, if she loses her life, she won’t be able to do too much about feeding her kids. Also, she is arguably exposing her kids to danger due to the possibility that some of those she feels in danger from may not limit their visits to the times when her kids are at school.

      As has been pointed out by several above, there are a lot of other choices that don’t involve these sort of risks.”

      From prostitution being ‘no different to a job in the supermarket’, now you are talking about ‘danger’ and ‘risks’. Could it be that prostitution is quite a lot different to work in a supermarket, and it is in fact a ‘big deal’ if someone feels they have to turn to this profession in order to feed their children?

      • McFlock 12.4.1
        6 June 2012 at 9:47 pm

        much lols

      • tsmithfield 12.4.2
        6 June 2012 at 9:56 pm

        I haven’t contradicted myself at all. You just haven’t read properly, and you have taken my second statement out of context with what I had written.

        • felix 12.4.2.1
          6 June 2012 at 10:53 pm

          No Tarquin, it’s you who wants your statements to be taken out of context.

          Blue has helpfully put them back in.

  13. burt 13
    6 June 2012 at 8:22 pm

    Wow, woman going ‘on the game’ to pay the rent…. is this a first for NZ ??????? Must be surely….

    FFS – I saw the stuff article on this and though – slow news day…. I’m absolutely stunned that it made it to this site. You seriously call this news blog worthy ???????

    • bbfloyd 13.1
      6 June 2012 at 8:50 pm

      Absolutely right bort….. We could be spending this time discussing how johnny”glitters” so much…..

      • burt 13.1.1
        6 June 2012 at 10:04 pm

        Ah no… we could be discussing how for some reason rent should be controlled because some people can’t afford it with the number of kids they have…..

        Perhaps if this woman moved from Christchurch to a different town she could get more value for money from the DPB she collects – just saying….

    • fatty 13.2
      6 June 2012 at 8:55 pm

      “You seriously call this news blog worthy ???????”

      The reason this piece of news is so important is that shows the farce that is neoliberal ideology…especially when neoliberalism is claimed to have morals.
      Choice in this instant is very limited, she is taking individual responsibility, but she is going against all the moralistic ideals projected from the (former) right wing.

      If you look at National voters, they are generally a simplistic lot and as a result many of their voters still vote for the blue team based on conservative ideals. But this exposes how neoliberalism conflicts with conservative ideals.
      If you best choice is prostitution, and you are forced to take individual responsibility…then this is the result.
      Beyond its sadness, its an interesting story where political ideologies become exposed as the shams they are.
      Wake up Burt…or get Ernie to explain the big words, you stupid muppet

      • burt 13.2.1
        6 June 2012 at 10:02 pm

        fatty

        So do you think it’s wrong that woman work as prostitutes? Is it abhorrent to your moral code or something?

        • McFlock 13.2.1.1
          6 June 2012 at 10:09 pm

          It’s abhorrent if they don’t want to, but feel compelled to in order to feed their kids.

          • burt 13.2.1.1.1
            6 June 2012 at 10:13 pm

            How so ? Either working to feed the kids is abhorrent or being a prostitute is abhorrent. Most people work to feed their kids McFlock… well, most people that don’t think the state owes them a living.

            • McFlock 13.2.1.1.1.1
              6 June 2012 at 10:28 pm

              Well, in the grand hierarchy of “stuff we don’t necessarily want to do but have to do to put food on the table”, maybe having a cock in you isn’t directly comparable to stacking shelves or looking at rows of numbers all day.

              All well and good if you enjoy it, but a different level if you really don’t want to do it.

          • Puddleglum 13.2.1.1.2
            6 June 2012 at 10:23 pm

            Exactly.

            She left the brothel shortly after having the children (so far as I can guess – she worked in the brothel a few years ago and, now, her children need shoes for school).

            That suggests she thought being a full-time mother was the best option for them. She is clearly reluctant to do what she now feels she has to do – go back to her previous way of getting an income.

            Personally, I have never bought in to the idea that sex work is seen by most sex workers as the ideal way to earn a living and one which they would choose irrespective of their life history and current circumstances. That doesn’t mean sex workers shouldn’t be respected and treated with dignity in the same way that my father worked as an unskilled factory worker most of his life, hated it every single day, but should never be looked down upon for working in factories.

            People do what they have to do – which puts a lie to all this ‘lifestyle choices’ crap.

          • fatty 13.2.1.1.3
            6 June 2012 at 10:35 pm

            “It’s abhorrent if they don’t want to, but feel compelled to in order to feed their kids.”

            Exactly, if by free choice then it is fine, if its a choice that has been shaped by coercion than there is a moral issue.
            Coercion in this case steams from Nation’s framing of poverty as an issue of individual responsibility.
            This news article shows that resorting to prostitution is a product of Nation’s choice to let the free market take care of the housing shortage in post-quake Chch.
            That is what is bothering you so much about this post…National’s market ideology and the concept of individual responsibility is coercing a mother into selling her body.
            Burt, rather than asking if prostitution is OK?…you should be asking yourself if you are comfortable that your political ideals coerce vulnerable women into selling their bodies?

            • burt 13.2.1.1.3.1
              6 June 2012 at 10:59 pm

              fatty

              Oh come on. Look I feel for the woman needing to work when she would rather not, I feel for the woman that the best paying job she can do is working in a profession ( trade ?) which she would rather not work in. Lots and lots of people are in that place fatty. This woman is not special in that regard.

              I’m sure if she is capable of working as a sex worker, which she clearly is, then there will be other work available to her. Sure flipping burgers won’t return the same hourly rate and would probably give her less control of the hours she ‘had’ to work as well. Cleaning houses would be less rewarding for the hours worked as well.

              Everybody makes these calls fatty. If you are genuinely upset that woman need to work as prostitutes then perhaps the best thing you can personally do is call/visit one yourself and pay them to come and have a cup of coffee with you. Hell get cheeky and offer them 50% of their normal fee – it’s only coffee. It’s one trick they don’t need to do for ‘whatever it is’ they need their money for.

              • felix …
                6 June 2012 at 11:04 pm

                It’s all just transactions to you, isn’t it burt?

              • fatty …
                6 June 2012 at 11:04 pm

                there we have it…the morals of Burt. Your mother must be so proud

              • burt …
                6 June 2012 at 11:39 pm

                felix

                It’s not for me judge what right and wrong in how other people trade their wants and their needs to get by and do what they need to do. So yes, when I look at other people it is just transactions. A buyer and a seller. Services are exchanged for currency. If I were a vegan I might feel like blocking workers from McDonalds unless I acknowledged they do what they need to do just like I do.

                I do like these threads that expose the sneering, selfish, entitled, judgmental attitudes underlying contemporary right-wing left-wing thought.

                Unless we have some state mandated ‘price for sex’ then the fact that a woman earns more per hour having sex than say packing shelves is something we need to accept and move on from. So what’s your real point felix – that it’s sad she needs the quick bucks and can’t do more hours? That circa $40,000/year salary isn’t enough to raise 2 kids and rent a house in a housing shortage zone – what really grinds your gears on this felix?

                • McFlock …
                  6 June 2012 at 11:47 pm

                  You really see no difference between fucking and flipping burgers? Forget the money thing, just on a basic level.

                  You sad, empty shell of a human being.

                  • burt …
                    6 June 2012 at 11:51 pm

                    Of course it’s different – no argument. But hang on… are we saying the woman can’t flip burgers ? If she can flip burgers then it’s not my place to judge her for being a prostitute – is it yours?

                    • McFlock …
                      7 June 2012 at 12:21 am

                      Maybe she can’t find a burger flipping job?

                    • felix …
                      7 June 2012 at 6:08 am

                      In burt’s world everyone can get a job at Maccas or a supermarket. Infinitely, apparently.

                      Back in reality, dozens of people compete for every one of those jobs.

                    • burt …
                      7 June 2012 at 10:34 pm

                      felix

                      I’ll ask again, what really grinds your gears on this felix?

                  • felix …
                    8 June 2012 at 2:31 am

                    Your manifest lack of humanity, mostly.

                    How about you?

                    • burt …
                      8 June 2012 at 8:15 am

                      OK, so it’s about me … that’s OK felix – I didn’t expect you to actually have much to say other than knocking everyone else.

                    • felix …
                      9 June 2012 at 10:30 am

                      Said plenty burt. Can’t help you if you won’t read it though.

            • burt 13.2.1.1.3.2
              6 June 2012 at 11:01 pm

              It’s got zero to do with politics fatty.

              Unless of course you are claiming no woman ever had to work as a prostitute to pay the rent and feed the kids under a Labour govt. You making that claim fatty ?

              • felix …
                6 June 2012 at 11:08 pm

                fatty didn’t claim that at all, burt. The blame lays squarely at the feet of your beloved free market ideology, where everyone is for sale, every thing is reduced to a commodity, and every interaction comes with a receipt.

                • fatty …
                  6 June 2012 at 11:22 pm

                  “Unless of course you are claiming no woman ever had to work as a prostitute to pay the rent and feed the kids under a Labour govt. You making that claim fatty ?”

                  WTF? I have about as much respect for the Labour party as you do, just cause I hate the blue team, doesn’t mean I love the red team.
                  I don’t know why I bother replying to your Brashisms.

                  Here’s a quote from me yesterday: “I would call Annette King one of the perpetrators, her and Helen Clark could have made a massive difference considering how long they were in power. (but I’m harsh on those two cause I consider the 5th Labour Govt to be one of our worst ever)”
                  http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-05062012/#comment-479230

                  I’m no Labour cheerleader…I’m not a Clark fan, not a Goff fan, not a Shearer fan…. and that’s another argument altogether…I don’t know where you pulled that one from

                  “It’s got zero to do with politics fatty.”

                  Really? Economic inequality has zero to do with politics?
                  …can you expand on that for us please

                  • burt …
                    6 June 2012 at 11:48 pm

                    fatty

                    Sorry about that Labour thing. I’ve apparently missed your angle.

                    Are I to assume your making moral judgement of these woman as doing a terrible thing or is it you don’t think people should need to jobs they would rather not do?

                    • fatty …
                      7 June 2012 at 12:32 am

                      that’s ok…I don’t mind the odd accusation, but i will bite back.

                      “Are I to assume your making moral judgement of these woman as doing a terrible thing or is it you don’t think people should need to jobs they would rather not do?”

                      I do not see prostitution as an immoral act, if that is what the person wants to do. But if people are doing prostitution through need, rather than want, then I think it becomes immoral.
                      I don’t see this as ‘people doing a job they would rather not do’, cause prostitution is laden with power issues that can demean and destroy people’s lives. Its not comparable to most other jobs. The fact that its now legal is not to say that the power issues embedded in prostitution have gone, or that it is an acceptable career choice.
                      The same thing happened with some internet videos called ‘bumfights’…homeless people were paid a few dollars to smack the crap out of each other. I don’t see fighting for money to be immoral…such as UFC or boxing…but when people feel they have to, rather than choose to, it becomes morally problematic.
                      I don’t care what people do with their sex lives, or if they make money off it. But I do care if people are getting into prostitution because they feel they need to. I know this is a grey area and there is no definite line when need becomes want, but I see that this case is more need than want.
                      If we ended poverty, prostitution would not disappear because some do it out of enjoyment. We should aim to end prostitution as a need, let colin craig moan about prostitution as a want.

                      Burt, do you see all prostitution in NZ as morally acceptable? Do you think coercion depends on one’s economic and social standing? Do you see the choice of becoming a prostitute as being free of coercion?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      7 June 2012 at 2:01 am

                      Do you think coercion depends on one’s economic and social standing?

                      The whole reason for poverty is coercion. It’s why John Key wants to see wages drop. Desperate people will do what they’re told by someone who can provide a little food.

                    • burt …
                      7 June 2012 at 10:42 pm

                      fatty

                      Burt, do you see all prostitution in NZ as morally acceptable?

                      Yes.

                      Do you think coercion depends on one’s economic and social standing?

                      Not as you have worded it, but yes of course – Particularly so if you actually attempt to apply your own moral code to it.

                      Look I suspect there are other things that this woman can do (I simply can’t believe the only job an apparently otherwise functional woman can do is prostitution. ) so like I have said elsewhere in this thread; I make no judgement on that from a moral perspective and therefore coercion is only “better hourly rate”. Plenty of people do things they would rather not do for a “better hourly rate”.

                      Do you see the choice of becoming a prostitute as being free of coercion?

                      No more or less than being offered a well paying short term contract v a secure permanent position. If needs must….

                    • fatty …
                      8 June 2012 at 1:20 pm

                      “Burt, do you see all prostitution in NZ as morally acceptable?
                      Yes.”

                      Wow…that’s all I have to say about that. I guess if that is your position then there is no further need for dicusiion.

                    • burt …
                      9 June 2012 at 10:02 am

                      fatty

                      Go on hide behind the ‘I don’t think it’s acceptable and you do so no more to say’ cop out.

                      Some woman decides of her own free will that the best rate of return for her time is prostitution and somehow my position on prostitution becomes the biggest thing to you. You are a debating super star fatty !

                    • fatty …
                      9 June 2012 at 10:11 am

                      “Go on hide behind the ‘I don’t think it’s acceptable and you do so no more to say’ cop out.”

                      Its true…I cop out, I have no chance when arguing with someone with little to no morals.
                      My whole argument is based around prostitution being immoral if coercion is involved. You say that all prostitution is morally acceptable.

                      You call me a cop out, I call you immoral. Fair is fair.

                    • burt …
                      9 June 2012 at 10:15 am

                      How many days do you need to work to earn $660 in your hand fatty ?

                    • burt …
                      9 June 2012 at 10:17 am

                      fair would be me being as stupid as you forgetting what we are actually debating and calling you a prude. Hey we could just spend the next few days trading insults about how we view each others morality and forget that we came here to discuss a woman who has decided that the best rate of return for her labour is prostitution.

                    • felix …
                      9 June 2012 at 10:25 am

                      “How many days do you need to work to earn $660 in your hand fatty ?”

                      How many days do you think she has to work at bringing up children, burt? Probably about seven, every waking moment, plus overtime.

                    • fatty …
                      9 June 2012 at 10:25 am

                      “How many days do you need to work to earn $660 in your hand fatty ?”

                      Probably about 6/7 days….how many minutes do the top 10% need to work to earn $660 in their hand?
                      Is there a follow up to this question?

                    • burt …
                      9 June 2012 at 4:03 pm

                      fatty

                      how many minutes do the top 10% need to work to earn $660 in their hand?
                      Is there a follow up to this question?

                      Follow up question…. Have you always suffered from the policies of envy such that all you care about is how unfair it is that high earning working people have more money than DPB recipients?

                    • felix …
                      9 June 2012 at 5:15 pm

                      burt if you’re looking for evidence of envy, you might want to cast your mind back to chris73’s comments which sparked this whole discussion.

                    • fatty …
                      9 June 2012 at 5:47 pm

                      “Have you always suffered from the policies of envy such that all you care about is how unfair it is that high earning working people have more money than DPB recipients?”

                      No.
                      I view society as a complex web of power relations where one’s identity can either be forced on them, or it can be oppressed, or they can have freedom and be empowered. Within NZ we enjoy relative freedom and equality (not always), and people from all cultures, lifestyles and backgrounds have the opportunity to live a life the way they see is best for them. Also within NZ, since the 1980s we have had one major issue that is oppressing many people and limiting freedom…that issue is economic inequality.
                      Are you familiar with Sen’s Capability Approach?…there are 3 key points – functionings, capabilities and agency. Most people in NZ have functionings to various degrees, but we do not all possess the capability….as a result many people’s agency is limited (no freedom). The problem in NZ is inequality prevents freedom. Freedom of choice, freedom to participate, freedom from human rights violations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach
                      Your assumption that I am envious is wrong and suffers from your inability to think beyond binary logic / Fox News idioms. Just as you claimed I was for Labour cause National are incompetent…this simplistic assumption suggests that since a person points out poverty, they are therefore envious. You are wrong. Again. My beef is with a system that rewards and encourages greed and turns otherwise nice humans into crabs in a bucket. It also deprives people of their capabilities so they cannot achieve the functions which are available to them…as a result, agency and freedom is denied. I am not envious that people have been ‘successful’ in filling their lives with consumer goods…they can chase their empty dream to their grave for all I care. But their actions prevent other people’s agency.
                      The Government produced housing crisis in Christchurch is a result of political ideology…the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The poor lose their freedoms under right wing Governments. We have a problem when women have their capabilities so constricted due to people hogging resources, that they turn to prostitution. There is no freedom of choice in this case because she has limited capabilities.
                      So back to your question…you can call it envy if you want, but that would assume that capitalism and poverty are natural and morally OK. Its a shame that every time you post something Burt, your lack of morals shine through and paint you as a nasty, and self-indulgent piece of work.
                      That was the short answer…any more questions?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      9 June 2012 at 5:57 pm

                      Well said fatty.

  14. Jeremy Connell 14
    6 June 2012 at 9:26 pm

    Clapped out, attention-seeking whore wants to live in house that’s way beyond her means, and that’s news? I live in chch, earn over 100k, and can barely afford to pay what happens to be the exact same level of rent, and yeah, 4 kids. That fact that she’s even living in a house that’s the same price as mine reeks of communism. Whores always have ridiculous excuses for why they do what they do, my mother needs a life saving operation? Whatever, suck it!

    • Murray Olsen 14.1
      6 June 2012 at 11:16 pm

      Move up to Brian Tamaki’s City of God then. I’m sure you’d feel more at home there.

    • prism 14.2
      9 June 2012 at 6:09 pm

      Good one Jeremy. No-one has been paying any attention to you and your trials and tribulations.
      Of course the first thing to do is diss you somehow just for bringing up your difficulties. Then label you as obssessively fecund for having four kids that you obviously can’t afford. Then because you are a wage earner you are obviously a better and more responsible person than someone on a benefit, so you are doubly damned for having that fourth kid. You should have known better you smug middle class non-wa…r. Then if you are being outrageously satirical, so am I.

  15. felix 15
    6 June 2012 at 9:31 pm

    I do like these threads that expose the sneering, selfish, entitled, judgmental attitudes underlying contemporary right-wing thought.

    • burt 15.1
      6 June 2012 at 10:00 pm

      Who are these sneering, selfish, entitled, judgmental attitudes from felix?

      The judgment I see is people saying it’s horrible… wrong …. improper….

      I think she has found a way to earn more money per hour than anything else she can do and that’s not news – it’s life.

      • felix 15.1.1
        6 June 2012 at 11:00 pm

        Mostly TheContrarian, Tarquin, and chris73.

        Afraid to complete their vile thoughts in public they hide behind innuendo and smears.

        At least you’re open about your hideousness.

        • TheContrarian 15.1.1.1
          7 June 2012 at 8:42 am

          “Who are these sneering, selfish, entitled, judgmental attitudes from felix?”

          “Mostly TheContrarian, Tarquin, and chris73”

          Care to back that up with some evidence or is that just a smear of your own?

          • felix 15.1.1.1.1
            7 June 2012 at 9:12 am

            Evidence of your attitude? Don’t be silly, that’s a subjective observation on my part.

            Anyone can scroll up and see for themselves what you’ve written, look at it in context, and reach their own conclusions about you, your motivations, and your psychological make-up.

        • chris73 15.1.1.2
          7 June 2012 at 10:41 am

          Actually what I say here is more censored then what I say at work, the gym, the pub or wherever I happen to be at the time (if I’m on this subject)

          See the threat of censorship is what makes me edit my own comments but in public I don’t need to worry about it

          Something about you reminds me of a phrase containing the words pot, kettle and black.

          • felix 15.1.1.2.1
            8 June 2012 at 2:51 am

            If you came out and said what you thought, like burt does, people could assess your ideas for themselves whether they agree with them or not. Even if they find them repugnant, like I do some of burt’s, they’re on the table for discussion.

            The way you’re doing it – nudge nudge wink wink – there’s nothing to discuss.

            You’re not actually hiding anything in that it’s pretty obvious what you think, but you’re expressing it in an underhand way that denies anyone a right of reply. Whenever someone calls you on your shit you can just turn around and say “I never said that”, and you’d be correct.

            But everyone can see what you meant, and it does make you look like a wee bit of a coward and quite a bit of a worm.

    • Puddleglum 15.2
      6 June 2012 at 10:09 pm

      +1, and the contradictions

  16. Murray Olsen 16
    6 June 2012 at 11:22 pm

    If she did want to move somewhere else, Paula’s little lovelies would probably put all sorts of obstacles in her way anyway. They don’t want beneficiaries living in cheap places; they want them in the main centres where they can apply their “availability for work” policies.
    Michael Savage built houses for those who needed them while Gerry Brownstain pours money down the snouts of those who have too much already. I used to have a little pride in my country. I could point to things we’d done that were leading the world. Now I’m ashamed and the only good thing is that a few of us have decided we’re not gonna take it no more.

  17. Hami Shearlie 17
    7 June 2012 at 12:36 am

    Why is no-one mentioning the father of these children? Surely, if the mother of HIS children(they are his as well as hers), is not receiving enough money to look after the children properly and have a decent place for them to live, then the father should step up and help!! It’s about time some of the vitriol was aimed at the fathers of these children. The solo mothers cop such flak, but they are the only parents who are visible! The “invisible” fathers always seem to escape the wrath of the red-neck Nact supporters. Ever read about the huge amount of money owed to the IRD by invisible fathers hiding in Australia and here as well? And no, before you ask, I am not a solo mother!

    • chris73 17.1
      7 June 2012 at 7:02 am

      Good point

    • Jackal 17.2
      7 June 2012 at 8:53 am

      Hami Shearlie

      Ever read about the huge amount of money owed to the IRD by invisible fathers hiding in Australia and here as well?

      How much money exactly is owed to IRD by “invisible fathers hiding in Australia and here as well” then?

    • burt 17.3
      7 June 2012 at 11:07 pm

      Why is no-one mentioning the father of these children? Surely, if the mother of HIS children(they are his as well as hers), is not receiving enough money to look after the children properly and have a decent place for them to live, then the father should step up and help!!

      I think everyone is too busy applying their own moral values to her choice of work to consider the real picture here. However, perhaps he is on a benefit as well and isn’t doing much better himself. Unless he’s an exceptional man his employment opportunities would seem likely to be less than hers.

      • felix 17.3.1
        8 June 2012 at 2:59 am

        “I think everyone is too busy applying their own moral values to her choice of work”

        I think that’s an enormous assumption. I don’t have a moral objection to sex work.

        I do however have a huge moral objection to the idea that anyone should be in any way compelled by others to take part in it.

        This includes, by the way, your quite awful suggestion that if someone has worked in the sex industry before then they shouldn’t have a problem doing it again.

        • burt 17.3.1.1
          8 June 2012 at 8:16 am

          I do however have a huge moral objection to the idea that anyone should be in any way compelled by others to take part in it.

          So who is forcing her felix – her kids ?

          • felix 17.3.1.1.1
            9 June 2012 at 10:17 am

            Oh well if no-one’s actually holding a gun to her head then I guess she’s just a rational actor making transactions to maximise her utility.

            Cos there’s, you know, nothing in between those concepts. And the fact that she says she doesn’t want to do sex work is irrelevant because as you so accurately observe, she’s done it before.

  18. Colonial Viper 18
    8 June 2012 at 7:59 pm

    Right wingers love to see the down trodden get trodden down further. The poor and struggling morally and ethically deserve a harder kicking you see.

    • burt 18.1
      9 June 2012 at 10:05 am

      The only kicking going on here CV is a bunch of moralistic nanny state advocates moaning that what she is doing is wrong and that other people should give her more money than they already do. $660 a week not enough free money for her CV …. You know what, if every woman on the DPB started working as a prostitute then the price of prostitutes would drop significantly and some might even find flipping burgers provided a better rate of return for their time.

      • felix 18.1.1
        9 June 2012 at 10:18 am

        I don’t see any moralising or anyone saying what she’s doing is wrong.

        Your morality is being questioned though.

      • fatty 18.1.2
        9 June 2012 at 10:57 am

        “moaning that what she is doing is wrong”

        As Felix has pointed out, you have completely missed the issue. Her actions are not immoral…has anyone on here claimed that? That’s Colin Craig logic.
        Burt, get someone to help you with your reading if you are not capable.

      • Vicky32 18.1.3
        10 June 2012 at 3:06 pm

        You know what, if every woman on the DPB started working as a prostitute

        Oh, but they already do! That is, I remember that some time in the 90s, a National MP (maybe he was even a Minister?) made a statement to that effect – saying that all DPB women were ‘state-funded prostitutes’. John Carter was his name I think? (He looked a bit like an Easter Island statue, or a Ken doll). I also remember the Herald having an interview with a DPB woman about her child’s reaction to that – he was maybe 8 years old, and once he knew what a prostitute was, very upset! 🙁

  19. captain hook 19
    9 June 2012 at 11:23 am

    It is much better to have a life than a lifestyle.
    Lifestyle implies that you have chosen something from a list supplied by marketeers and you have been captured by the lure ofgew gaws and trips to mashoo peekoo.
    suck it up.