Poverty Watch 40

10 comments on “Poverty Watch 40 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Psycho Milt 1

   20 July 2013 at 11:10 am

   It’s true that poor educational achievement is strongly correlated with poverty, and that this particular elephant in the room goes miraculously unnoticed when any government representative discusses our education system – from the Minister, down through Min of Ed spokespeople, all the way down to propagandists like Farrar and Slater (for whom any discussion of issues with the education system boils down to the evils of teacher unions).

   However, correlation isn’t causation and there’s a big question raised by the US research you quote, specifically by this bit:

   …using information from a dozen large national studies conducted between 1960 and 2010, I found that the rich-poor gap in test scores is about 40 percent larger now than it was 30 years ago.

   We’re seeing the same thing with other unpleasantnesses correlated with poverty (third-world diseases, kids going to school hungry etc) – they’re way up on what they were 30 years ago, but the people involved aren’t materially worse off than the people of 30 years ago. That suggests the explanations we should be looking for are social and cultural, not material.
   • just saying 1.1

     20 July 2013 at 11:50 am

     …but the people involved aren’t materially worse off than the people of 30 years ago.

     Citation required.

     It seems to me that this kind of belief at the heart of your worldview, PM, – that poverty (you would, I’m sure, put the word ‘poverty’ in inverted commas), arises primarilyfrom, – or maybe even is nothing more than, the character defects, ie the social, and cultural deficiencies, of the poor themselves. And this belief seems to entail, for you, punishment, or at the very least, removing anything that could be construed as “rewarding” poverty, such as providing more resources to the poor. For their own good – cruel to be kind etc.
     • tricledrown 1.1.1

       20 July 2013 at 1:25 pm

       the National party are nothing more than narcissistic bullies!
       even the Propaganda they push is flawed science nothing more than pure spin(BS)!
     • Psycho Milt 1.1.2

       20 July 2013 at 2:29 pm

       Citations:

       Ministry of Social Development, 2012, “Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship, 1982 to 2011“:

       The longer-run findings on child poverty reflect the fact that AHC incomes in 2011 for low-income households were around the same as they were in the early 1980s in real terms…

       This is spelt out more precisely in Max Rashbrooke’s Herald piece on rising inequality:

       Someone in the lowest 10th of the country has, after housing costs, just $11,500 a year to spend. That figure (adjusted for inflation) in 1982? $11,000.
       • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2.1

         20 July 2013 at 3:36 pm

         It has been noted that somethings have been going up at rates faster than the rate of inflation. Power and housing come to mind and so it’s likely that those people actually are materially worse off.
         • Psycho Milt 1.1.2.1.1

           20 July 2013 at 4:29 pm

           Sure, prices of some things rise faster than inflation – but prices of other things rise slower (for instance, clothes and shoes are much cheaper than they were in 1982, thanks to our enthusiastic exploitation of third-world labour). That’s why people are generally happy to call inflation-adjusted figures “real.” Also, the income figures above specifically exclude housing costs.
           • Blue Leopard 1.1.2.1.1.1

             20 July 2013 at 4:54 pm

             Is food cheaper?

             Seems like it is substantially more expensive.

             Housing costs excluded

             Is that because they have risen astronomically and would lead to the opposite conclusion to be drawn–that affordability of basic living costs are harder to meet now than they were before Market Theory was applied?
             • Psycho Milt …

               20 July 2013 at 7:10 pm

               I don’t doubt it’s possible to dispute endlessly the accuracy of “in real terms” and “adjusted for inflation” – nevertheless, they’re the best we’ve got. If you think MSD and Rashbrooke are wrong about their figures, make an opposing case.

               As to “housing costs excluded,” yes they are excluded for a reason, but not the one you’re imagining. Consider this:

               1. Housing costs have risen much faster than inflation over the last 30 years.
               2. Despite that, real after-housing-costs (AHC) income for low-income households is approximately equivalent to what it was 30 years ago.
               3. If housing costs are higher but AHC incomes are about the same, current before-housing-cost incomes must be higher than they were in 1982.
               4. Therefore, we shouldn’t compare before-housing-cost incomes – it would make current low incomes look higher than they actually are.

               So the comparison is best done with AHC incomes – to do otherwise would disguise the current level of poverty.
               • blue leopard …

                 20 July 2013 at 7:41 pm

                 Thanks for the explanation Psycho Milt. (The question-marks on my comment did indicate a genuine question.)

                 I do think it would be better to have food costs and housing costs being the items that became cheaper, over the things that have; food and shelter being more necessary than Tv’s, cars etc

Links to post

1. GPJA #470 (Part 2 of 2): News from Aotearoa and around the world | GPJA's Blog: posted on 1 August 2013 at 6:42 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS